“People such as Satoshi and Jordan Peterson have had huge impacts (regardless of one’s degree of enthusiasm for their ideas), and yet in terms of philanthropic funding the world just isn’t geared to seed their ambitions,” said Cowen.
I don't understand this quote. Satoshi is a fictional person as far as I'm concerned, who's idea has already succeeded to the extent that it can.
I don't even want to know what this Jordan Peterson guy needs funding for. He already has a very vocal, supportive fan base. He can probably raise a lot of money with Kickstarter if he needed to.
Would you please stop creating accounts for every couple comments you post? That's explicitly against the site guidelines, and we ban accounts that do it.
HN can't be a community without members. Disembodied comments are not community members. No one is required to use their real name here, but users need to have some consistent identity for others to relate to. Otherwise we might as well have no usernames and no community at all.
A disembodied-comment forum would be a different kind of site—perhaps an interesting one, but not Hacker News. You're free to find one or create one, but not to turn this one into that.
You seem to think that a lack of usernames means a lack of community, and this is not remotely true. Anonymous forums have been around for decades and have been quite successful.
It's tangential to the main point that HN is one kind of forum and not another, but I'd be curious to know some examples of what you're talking about. I don't think I've heard of one, and I have heard of counterexamples. In fact I ran across a famous one yesterday: https://books.google.com/books?id=pwo5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT126&...
Edit: that link no longer seems to work, but it was to a page of the book discussing an anonymous community that the WELL tried in the 80s, which quickly became abusive.
I know it is mostly a bunch of boring kids who like to be edgy to piss people off, but for me 4chan is an example of a successful community on what it does. I really think they far surpass HN in many areas : creativity, being in touch with popular culture/trends, willingness to take action,self-censorship, etc.
While I agree with this in practice, with the culture wars of the past few years, HN has recently received its fair share of people who downvote due to disagreement. It used to be that downvotes were generally reserved for poor quality comments and upvotes were given for substantive well-considered comments even when one disagreed. Eternal september and culture wars are a bad combination. It's no longer innocent ignorance in this eternal september.
I don't have a solution to offer here, but I increasingly sympathize with those that create throwaway accounts, especially now that intent is not longer considered when interpreting comments. People have been losing their jobs not for what they meant, but due to how their words were interpreted by someone else. The fact that HN doesn't allow one to delete their comments, makes these cultural changes increasingly concerning. Who knows which of our past comments will come back to bite us as society becomes less tolerant of ideas.
It's also inaccurate about deletion. We're happy to delete or redact older comments when users ask us to, and we do this all the time. We don't want anyone to get in trouble from anything they posted to HN. What we don't allow is wholesale deletion.
I was talking mostly about users who create throwaway accounts for everything, including uncontroversial stuff, so I don't see the relevance of the culture wars here.
I have always wondered if its possible to have three buttons (A)gree, (D)isgaree and (U)nhealthy. The first two buttons control how high up a comment apears in the thread/page and the last does the graying out currently reserved for downvoting. If there was any forum where people could deal with three buttons, HN would be it. Any thoughts?
That's a really nasty policy. If you openly said at account creation "Privileged users are free to downvote your comments and gray them out if they disagree with them, and you will not get this privilege for months or years, because there's a high karma threshold which we don't reveal" -- I don't know why I would bother signing up. I assumed it would be a reasonably attainable privilege for defensible uses, like it is at Stack Overflow or Slashdot.
All it takes to get downvote privileges is to submit a few decent stories. Anyone serious about being a solid contributor to the community can get there within a couple of weeks or even days.
People will downvote for whatever reason they want; HN admins can't control that, and couldn't stop people downvoting for disagreement even if they wanted to (though the karma threshold helps to limit downvoters to people who value the health of the community at least to some degree).
The best comments are those that people needn't strongly agree or disagree with, but that cause one to learn something new or think about something in a way they hadn't previously.
If you try and phrase most comments like that (which is surprisingly achievable, even - or especially - on the more contentious topics), downvotes needn't be a problem for you.
I didn't share the site's unstated assumption that making comments that people upvote isn't being a "contributor to the community".
You can control downvoting for disagreement by explicitly stating a norm against it, as StackOverflow does with alt text over the downvote and Reddit does with Reddiquette.
I don't believe I had had a comment downvoted before this one expressing disagreement with downvoters. However, I have found that many downvoted comments do contribute to the discussion, and even earn my upvote about 25% of the time. I don't think the downvote inner circle has a wholly positive effect on the site.
Who knows which of our past comments will come back to bite us as society becomes less tolerant of ideas.
Your desired solution only deepens such problems. It agrees that one is guilty and deserving of being fired instead of pushing back against that idea.
Disney recently fired someone for decade old tweets. Shortly thereafter, some publication stood by its decision to hire someone when their old not PC tweets came to light.
Civil liberties can be lost at any point in time. Gaining them doesn't guarantee them in perpetuity. They need to be guarded and promoted.
Falling on your sword is a great sentiment. But not everyone has the luxury of pushing back and risking their livelyhood and the income that feeds, clothes, and shelters themselves and their family.
Honestly, Hacker News as a community, and you as a moderator, don't deserve to have a permanent username for contributors. Changing usernames is really the only option for participating in the discussion when dealing with people who down-vote or moderate based on popular opinion rather than the supposed guidelines. I've seen you in particular selectively apply those guidelines, so I know you don't have the moral high ground here. It's ok to be sarcastic and abusive if you're saying something that goes along with the group-think, but the hammer drops if you dare question, much less contradict, in anything but the absolute most polite tone.
I doubt you have the energy to try and enforce your one-username policy against all the users who do this, but even if you did, you're just contributing to making this place even more of a monoculture than it already is. People who keep their usernames are mostly playing a popularity contest with silly karma points. Are you sure you're incentivising the right group for healthy and enlightening discussions??
I saw them as recognizable examples of the type of currently unrecognized thinker he wants to fund. I agree that the fund is not big enough to provide new options to those particular two.
I do think both are examples of how constraints and a long, unusual background lead to outstanding results. A fund like this attempts to shortcut that long climb but I think that would prevent the result from being unusual enough to be remarkable. I think funds like this are better for defined needs that are difficult to fund, such as open research questions.
It's unclear if Satoshi has made any money off Bitcoin, ever. (He definitely did, however, spend at a minimum thousands of dollars just in hosting and mining costs, never mind the actual work of making Bitcoin.)
In any case, he couldn't make any money off it between ~2006 - Bitcoin Pizza Day 2010, because it either didn't exist or it did but bitcoins were worthless and he couldn't give them away.
The minute possibility of being a billionaire in a decade does not pay any bills in the present, any more than it does for regular startups, who need VCs or other forms of investment.
According to the NYT he makes 80K/mo from Patreon. I too am sort of confused about why Cowen brought those two up as examples - especially when I don't really see what Peterson's "moon shot" was.
Come on! Yes, someone or some group created the blockchain etc. But he/she/the team is fictional because there is no one individual or group identified.
I don't understand this quote. Satoshi is a fictional person as far as I'm concerned, who's idea has already succeeded to the extent that it can.
I don't even want to know what this Jordan Peterson guy needs funding for. He already has a very vocal, supportive fan base. He can probably raise a lot of money with Kickstarter if he needed to.