It is also (and it surprises me that this ancient observation is so little cited), a highly visible example of

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Watching at these people accumulate and hoard hundreds of billions of wealth, in a capitalist society where wealth equals power, and become ever more corrupt as they do so, simply demonstrates the point yet again. And we must suffer the consequences as they choose to corrupt the govt so they can accumulate more power instead of doing works to benefit all.

Just for some perspective, I once calculated what it means to be rich. I called it at spending at a constant average of USD$2500/day. With 'only' $20million yielding 5%, you have $2700/day without even touching principle. There is no level of basic and even luxury needs that cannot be met with that kind of spending. OK, you want more, how about spending $25,000 per day, EVERY day for the rest of your life? That takes 'only' $200 million.

Those people have hundreds of times the amount of money that could ever make a difference in their standard of living.

The point is that once you reach past these levels, more money literally makes no material difference in your standard of living. Hoarding more money is only about one thing, power.

As a society, we need to be doing something different.

Like, call Thiel an idiot with stupid ideas that are dumb, fine, but trying to cancel someone from the "public sphere" just reeks of passive aggression.

All of us, collectively.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_sphere

> and who decides who does or does not get a membership card?

All of us, collectively.

George Orwell, 1984

It is very easy to find specific accounts that Musk brings readers to (or you can just be on X and follow him):

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-x-blocked-journalists-...

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/revealed-the-operators-behind...

That Clegg is in these emails is particularly onerous.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Millennials/comments/1g1gw7v/famous...

Zuckerberg thinks he’s more well-known than Taylor Swift, Justin Bieber, Ed Sheeran, Scarlett Johansson, Adele, Lady Gaga, Cristiano Ronaldo, Beyoncé…

The fact you only nitpicked a single name from that list is, I think, quite telling. We know who Zuckerberg is. Non-tech-nerds just going on with their lives don’t for the most part, even if they use apps from Meta. If they even heard the name, it was due to some negative news related to Facebook or Meta.

https://today.yougov.com/ratings/entertainment/fame/people/a...

Zuckerberg is 49, Sheeran is 169 (Taylor Swift is on 4; Bieber, Lady Gaga and Beyoncé are also more famous than Zuckerberg; the rest in the list are less famous)

Which, by definition, is incomplete when we’re talking about the world. If we examined by country, it would fluctuate wildly. For example, in any country with soccer as the national sport, Ronaldo would crush Zuckerberg in popularity.

Either way, the point (in which I think we’re all mostly in agreement) is that Zuckerberg’s comment falls somewhere between the absurd and the delusional. If you want to pick a different list of names, go right ahead. I’d say Tailor Swift is indisputable, though.

That said, I'm not into music and assumed he was a footballer.

Same (minus the footballer part). When I was made aware of Ed Sheeran, he was already the biggest artist in the world. But that says something about me and my general disinterest for music and pop culture, not Sheeran’s popularity.

It's true, I picked him because he was the obvious laggard in that list of celebrities (he is by far the least talented of everyone else in the list) . The poll someone else posted shows in the US, Zuckerberg is more well known than Sheeran.

Zuckerberg probably is more well-known than Ed Sheeran. "Ed Sheeran", the name, may be more familiar, but what do typical people really know about the details of his life? Zuckerberg, on the other hand, had a movie made about him. At least everyone knows about Taylor Swift's dating life, if we want to compare to music celebrities.

Still, imagine Prince William or Prince Harry have to be most well-known. They've been chronicled since birth. Especially when you look past an Americentric view and turn to the world stage.

The guy may be arrogant, but nothing about his statement was arrogant. He was stating facts.

No I didn't because the context of the statement was up for debate.

> He didn't say "in tech", he said what he said.

The email thread about about tech though. Besides, I also wrote "But expanding it beyond tech, he definitely is as well-known as anyone else in his generation."

My comment was in good fath and addressed both scenarios : "tech" and "non-tech"

Your original comment and not surprising your reply was not in good faith because have an agenda.

I’m not agreeing, but I’m hard pressed to find another person that is from the millennial generation that has been a persistent “public figure” as long and persistently than Zuck. He has been persistently in the news more or less daily since 2006.

Can you name another millennial that has a wider and longer lasting notoriety?

Does that mean that people respect him, or think of him as an ideal person or whatever?

No

but that’s not what Zuckerberg is saying - he’s saying “well known”

I’m not sure I could name another millennial that is as well known globally for as long - maybe Ronaldo or Taylor Swift

Prince William and Prince Harry have him beat on that front, surely? They've been persistent public figures since birth.

And if we limit it to modern times, Taylor Swift has got to be way more well known. Even my young kids know who Taylor Swift is. They have no clue about who Zuckerberg is.

I would imagine Swifties see a lot more Taylor Swift news than Zuckerberg news. For someone on HN, they're going to see a lot more Zuckerberg news than average.