>Police violence, government surveillance, stuff happening in Israel, etc.
What's this idea of waiting for a handful of people to shape our entire world for us? You want these problems attacked? Then, attack them. I mean that sincerely and without contempt.
Further, nothing uniquely (or otherwise) qualifies pg to address every issue on the planet. He's awesome at startups, is generally a smart guy, and seems to be genuinely concerned about people/the world. All great qualities, but is he, or anyone else, the guy/gal for everything? Is that even desirable?
None of this is snark, nor aimed at pg or any one person in particular. I'm just genuinely baffled that so many thinking people want a few gatekeepers to shape the entire Universe for the rest of us. How about a little diversity of ideas that don't have to be sanctioned by the same three dudes to see the light of day? Investors and other kingdom-key holders are a tiny fraction of the population, yet wield hugely disproportionate economic influence as it is. Do we really want every social problem to be addressed by only the ideas/people they bless?
So many here are libertarian or otherwise have a "thing" about centralization of power and control. Yet, they continuously advocate that certain people create their world for them. It's tempting, I suppose, to see this as acceptable when those people seem bright and benevolent. But, in reality, it is still a position that advocates for personal disempowerment and a relatively monolithic society.
What's this idea of waiting for a handful of people to shape our entire world for us? You want these problems attacked? Then, attack them. I mean that sincerely and without contempt.
Further, nothing uniquely (or otherwise) qualifies pg to address every issue on the planet. He's awesome at startups, is generally a smart guy, and seems to be genuinely concerned about people/the world. All great qualities, but is he, or anyone else, the guy/gal for everything? Is that even desirable?
None of this is snark, nor aimed at pg or any one person in particular. I'm just genuinely baffled that so many thinking people want a few gatekeepers to shape the entire Universe for the rest of us. How about a little diversity of ideas that don't have to be sanctioned by the same three dudes to see the light of day? Investors and other kingdom-key holders are a tiny fraction of the population, yet wield hugely disproportionate economic influence as it is. Do we really want every social problem to be addressed by only the ideas/people they bless?
So many here are libertarian or otherwise have a "thing" about centralization of power and control. Yet, they continuously advocate that certain people create their world for them. It's tempting, I suppose, to see this as acceptable when those people seem bright and benevolent. But, in reality, it is still a position that advocates for personal disempowerment and a relatively monolithic society.