Silicon Valley Techno-Utopianism

I kind of feel for you here, because it seems like you have a setup that's pretty similar to what most people around America have (you're used to it, it works, it's fine, in-laws nearby which is kinda huge when you have kids) but it's embedded in this cultural expectation that living in New York is supposed to be AMAZING and also AN IMPOSSIBLE CRISIS when for you it is neither and I feel like that would create some kind of internal dissonance

Yeah, actually I think it's sort of the feeling that I have to work harder and have a better job than most people just to have an ordinary standard of living, not that there's actually anything wrong with the standard of living. I never actually aimed to live here for all the "AMAZING NYC" stuff, it just sort of worked out that we live here. But that stuff sometimes feels like this fantastical simulacra that exists just beyond the threshold of my actual life.

Like I have more stress for that same standard of living.

My own issue is maybe I'm getting older. When I first moved to NYC I was in my early 20s, and I was a wannabe hipster scumbag. New York was awesome for that. Now that I'm a little more mature, it's like, have a normal life in a more expensive, more stressful environment ... it's worth some thought.

tbh most people, especially parents, tend to live that way -- commute to a job, spend the rest of your time in and around a neighborhood, with the exception of occasional excursions for shopping/entertainment or regular semi-commutes for kid activities (sports, dance class, music lessons)

Silicon Valley is kind of a weird one in that a lot of smaller companies are now in SF, but the larger employers remain in big suburban campuses. Apple, Google, etc have a number of people doing the reverse city-to-suburb commute, but a lot of people who are settled in those businesses live in the outlying suburbs closer to work

afaik Google is still working on a campus in Boulder, Colorado, which is relatively self-contained and would have a minimal commute, at least until housing dries up completely and people are driving from the next town over

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cihoxn-UgAAlbU0.jpg

apparently marc andreessen posted something about how india would be better off if it was still a colony

He didn't quite say that - he said anti-colonialism had been disastrous for the Indian economy for decades. It was in the context of the country rejecting Facebook's 'free basics' model.

sounds like a moldbugism xp

facebook's free basics thing is a poor fit for India and is pretty much the most neo-colonial capitalist endeavor

Yep. There was a good Guardian article about it last week.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg

Senior people at Facebook, the executive said, had convinced themselves they had special pull with the prime minister. “They believed Modi would do it for them,” he said, recalling meetings where people discussed the similarities in “managing” India and Africa: “It worked in Burundi, so it should work in India.”

*reads up about the people of Burundi and its government*

ummm

Smartest guys in the room

andreessen framing it as some anti-western influence thing when it was actually indians having a public discussion about net neutrality and corporate influence

and people in silicon valley wonder why we're so skeptical of their techno-utopianism

Zuckerberg is apparently going to meet with Dana Perino and Glenn Beck after the pathetic WATB fallout from FB's insipid "lock j-school grads in a basement and make them do 3 line summaries of news" experiment. Maybe he can finally convince social conservatives like Curt Schilling to start using Facebook.

perhaps ‎andrew schlafly will be inspired to start his own version of facebook

misread as andrew ridgely, was surprised

fingers crossed xp

I miss the days when the super-rich would just start dumb ineffectual charities and not try to usurp the role of government.

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/plutocrats-at-work-how-big-philanthropy-undermines-democracy

this "free basics" thing has very little to do with charity and a hell of a lot to do with getting more facebook users and expanding their advertising network

Caek that essay is terrific, thanks for that link.

yup i enjoyed the opening rant i saved my highlights which were...

“One hundred years later, big philanthropy still aims to solve the world’s problems—with foundation trustees deciding what is a problem and how to fix it. They may act with good intentions, but they define “good.” The arrangement remains thoroughly plutocratic: it is the exercise of wealth-derived power in the public sphere with minimal democratic controls and civic obligations.”

“The main rationale for both the tax exemption and the charitable contribution tax deduction (created in 1917) is to stimulate private giving. Yet this is a weak rationale when applied to the super-rich; a more effective way to stimulate their giving would be to raise the estate and capital gains taxes. It is a meaningless rationale for the 65 percent of American taxpayers who don’t itemize their deductions and therefore can’t use the charity tax break.”

“Sycophancy is built into the structure of philanthropy: grantees shape their work to please their benefactors; they are perpetual supplicants for future funding. As a result, foundation executives and trustees almost never receive critical feedback. They are treated like royalty, which breeds hubris—the occupational disorder of philanthro-barons”

“When the creator of a mega-foundation says, “I can do what I want because it’s my money,” he or she is wrong. A substantial portion of the wealth—35 percent or more, depending on tax rates—has been diverted from the public treasury, where voters would have determined its use.”

The fact that gigantic charitable foundations, such as the Ford Foundation or Rockefeller Foundation, are merely alternative methods for their boards of directors (often controlled by their founder or by their founder's heirs) to exercise power over society is an open secret. This was one of those compromises that were made at the time the income tax and estate taxes were being imposed on the plutocrats who arose in the last decades of the 19th century. It was always understood that this arrangement allowed wealthy people to continue to control their money as they saw fit, provided some sort of philanthropic fig leaf was applied to the transaction.

i ended up looking into the alternatives in case i am a billionaire one day and it seems the options are either:

voluntarily pay down the national debt (lol this is dumb) https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/gift/gift.htm

and "gifts to the united states"

http://www.fms.treas.gov/faq/moretopics_gifts.html
Citizens who wish to make a general donation to the U.S. government may send contributions to a specific account called "Gifts to the United States." This account was established in 1843 to accept gifts, such as bequests, from individuals wishing to express their patriotism to the United States. Money deposited into this account is for general use by the federal government and can be available for budget needs. These contributions are considered an unconditional gift to the government. Financial gifts can be made by check or money order payable to the United States Treasury and mailed to the address below.

hmm we should have beers more often

your treat

tangentially reminds me of the savings bonds my grandma bought for me. not the most interest-bearing investment, but at the time they were something like 6% compounded annually. so $250 worth of bonds every year or two turned into a couple grand for me after 20 years

current bond rate is something like .1% for EE series :(

I have no money rn but I believe in the American Dream xxp

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CixMwpfXAAA5rvI.jpg

dude is disrupting the shit out of the status quo

can we talk about this
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2016/may/17/rentberry-sparks-fears-housing-crisis/

jesus christ

gross

omg what how can that possibly be legal

Great. Something else for the leftists to whine about. "But I DESERVE that big, nice apartment in the chic area for what it would have gone for 25 years ago! I can't afford to pay more, but that's where I need to live!" Shaddap.
Reply 0 ▲0 ▼

‒

Free market. No one complains about eBay. And Sf has rent control. Those entitled people just cry about everything. Move away from the city if you won't put in the effort to afford it.

I also wonder how it would work logistically -- Does rentberry meet you and check you out? Does it do a credit check? Does it hold your security deposit money for you and verify that you actually have the ability to pay the rent you bid?

If you don't pay, the landlord can just use GoonBerry.

http://www.theonion.com/article/ayahuasca-shaman-dreading-another-week-guiding-tec-52941

this is excellent https://nplusonemag.com/issue-25/on-the-fringe/uncanny-valley/

Good writing, but I wonder who all of these tech-obsessed techies are that spend every minute talking about tech and going to meetups and talking about funding at parties and everything. I've been in the valley for a long time, and this seems to be a particular breed of nerd that I haven't come across too often. The author makes it seem pervasive. Maybe she needs a new group of friends...

cross-posted from the "buying a house" thread but figured it could go here too http://www.citylab.com/housing/2016/05/the-rise-of-million-dollar-homes-in-san-francisco-and-the-bay-area/483485/

crazy

thanks for that caek, that was really good.

at least when she was talking about the office day, it was v redolent of my own experience in a medium sized pre-ipo startup

schwantz i agree that your social life is what you make of them to an extent, and it's very easy to avoid the tech scene in nyc. but this rang true

We care about one another. We even care about the executives who can make us feel like shit. We want good lives for them, just like we want good lives for ourselves. We care, for fuck’s sake, about the company culture.

how many ppl is "medium-sized" approximately?

i don't know how accurately it depicts the silicon valley culture and don't really care too much, but the writing was excellent.

i joined at just below 200, people had been saying IPO next year for a year or two at that stage. still no IPO but they're at about 500 employees i think

that sounds reasonable, I wasn't sure where the line merged into large

anything more than like... 50 - 100 people, maybe, seems like a medium-sized company? I'm sure there's a gartner study that tells me exactly where the quadrants are

Under Dunbar's number, small company. Over Dunbar's number, medium company. Over 10x Dunbar's number, large company.

https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf

Information businesses generally are categorized as "large" at >~$30M or >1000 employees apparently.

hmm, tricky one. I think my employer fits under a couple different categories