Helianthus

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.

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.

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 "Yes?".

>Looks like you have some personal issues, you're taking this way too personal.

This is banter while I fold my laundry.

>some people love making money and there's nothing wrong with that.

See, you just keep on repeating your disagreement with me as if it's going to change anything. Moral imperatives are, well, imperative, you know? I'm just going to reiterate: there is something wrong with that.

I'll rephrase you: some people hate the love of money and there's nothing wrong with that, or at the very least, you can't do anything about it.

You're wasting your own time and giving me more opportunity to bash greed, which is, as I said, making the folding of my laundry more enjoyable.

But I guess it might bother you that someone might think your moral compass is off center because of your position on money.

In other words, you don't want money, but you are forced to deal with it.

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.

>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 comment about how much you feel about it.

I suppose I enjoy throwing the moral imperative into sharp relief; making it clear just how much I disdain your vulgar acceptance of the love of wanting money.

That moral imperative alone is enough to carry weight in this thread. It has wandered in as mere sentiment without ever presenting an argument.

...Now, of course, I have strayed into lecturing you about the mechanics of this whole thing--but note I still have not lectured you with the moral judgment itself. I don't care about convincing you that money is vulgar. Sanctimony is enough for me.

You are quite right, though; I have spent enough time here.

>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 you disagree, and one that has no regard for your disagreement.

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 Whatsapp is valuable? Because Whatsapp was less useful before the smart people bought it?

Are you incapable of viewing the transaction of 16 billion as a possible utter mistake? As financial hand-waving assigning a liquid value to shares whose value might well be inflated?

Money is a poor measure of value. Plain and simple. Are you drawn to the volume of the transaction because you think it signifies true success?

> it's probably worth taking a second look at what WhatsApp did to get to this point.

Something I never contested and agreed with explicitly.

There's paying the bills, and there's lust for percentages of 16 billion dollars.

Forgive me if I'm contemptuous of those whose subjective goal is the acquisition of money.

>Is it really vulgar to desire money and take it as indicator of success

Yes? It is not only vulgar, it is utterly clueless.

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; I don't know when it was posted online.)

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 this particular topic, but the ridiculous surge in Whatsapp stories doesn't lie. And of course we should inspect the action of successful companies.

I am merely pointing at the crude vulgarity of the Valley's barometer for success.

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.)

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.

Why are you asking me?

Goodnight.

I never said I was proud that I could tell your comment was self-aggrandizing. I only said it was obvious.

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 actual rebuttal...

---

>Surely it has by now occurred to you that you're defending this person's right to say whatever he chooses, while denying me the same right?

I didn't say you shouldn't say anything, I'm saying you're an asshole for being proud of having said anything.

Your original response regarding what constitutes a violation of physics was fine. Your response to gfodor was simple gloating.

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 buddying up to one another over how worthless that thought is.

Spare us your revelry.

I'm as big a fan as a dirty flame war as anyone. I find complaints over HN's critical culture to be tiring and self-defeating.

But if you're going to be negative, don't give each other high fives about it.

Edit: I suppose this is directed more at you, lutusp, because gfodor seems to be posting criticism in earnest.

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 that an amicable suit-wearing programmer could easily do well at an interview.

>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 shut up about it.

You are making it obvious that Google is a problem.

They're commenting in this topic, and they seem clueless as to why anyone would object at all.

>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.

>Don't waste your time and everyone else's with worthless campaigns such as this.

I mean, you can do both.

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.

I think the relevant distinction here is that the 'crooks' we're discussing aren't likely to be held legally accountable for their activities.

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 anyone wrong.

hahaha this was hilarious even before I saw the 15 or so additional contradictory suggestions below this thread.

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 spent a summer in 2008 reading through his blog.

[ insert obligatory thatthatis's recursive-reference-escape coining reference here ]