TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Political Showdown: Peter Thiel vs. Google’s Eric Schmidt

21 点作者 mysticlabs超过 8 年前

4 条评论

flukus超过 8 年前
&gt; There’s been a lot of talk in Silicon Valley about Peter Thiel’s public contributions, and support for Donald Trump, yet no one seems to be talking about Eric Schmidt’s private contributions to the Clinton campaign that were just exposed via Wikileaks.<p>Because he picked the &quot;right&quot; side, you only got bullied if you support the &quot;wrong&quot; one.
评论 #12851357 未加载
评论 #12851236 未加载
评论 #12851567 未加载
oever超过 8 年前
&gt; How is it acceptable that the Chairman of one of the largest corporations in American can fund a secret startup that works directly for the [candidate&#x27;s] campaign? Meanwhile, potentially contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars personally to the [candidate&#x27;s] foundation?<p>Not only that, but the company&#x27;s main revenue is from its ability to influence people&#x27;s actions, e.g. voting, via advertising.
jessriedel超过 8 年前
I wonder why these guys don&#x27;t just agree to jointly donate their money to charity.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sideways-view.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;10&#x2F;31&#x2F;repledge&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;sideways-view.com&#x2F;2016&#x2F;10&#x2F;31&#x2F;repledge&#x2F;</a>
internaut超过 8 年前
Thiel and Schmidt have two very different worldviews, they had a debate on capital &#x27;P&#x27; progress a few years ago.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=PsXFwy6gG_4</a><p>Many people find Thiel&#x27;s argument hard to believe, especially if they are aspirational middle class types. This is because normal people have a chronocentric bias. Of all our biases, this one is probably the strongest of all.<p>If you find Thiel&#x27;s position hard to believe, it is worth examining what our grandparents thought about the future.<p>&quot;The Home of the Future in 1999&quot; (from the 1960s)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;0RRxqg4G-G4" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;0RRxqg4G-G4</a><p>I am at the point where I consider the optimistic narrative (ex-computation) utterly without supporting evidence. It is all PR and marketing.<p>Here is one example. Consider the discovery of DNA. Important scientifically. And all the resultant research into genetics since.<p>But tell me what relevance any of it has had to the average person? Have we new drugs? More effective treatments? Cheaper medicine?<p>This is a minor heresy among the &#x27;educated&#x27; but to me the answer is clearly no.<p>Think about that for a minute or two. Either I am mad, or in half a century there has been no measurable effects. If the second is true then why do we believe CRISPR is going to revolutionize everything outside? The discovery of DNA itself, the Human Genome Project. The cheaper shotgun sequencing. These should have had enormous material effects on society. It does nothing!<p>Food prices should be much lower. They are static or increasing. Timber should be of higher quality. It is actually much lower than before. Any non-niche new building materials out of biotech. I am unable to identify any. New breeds of animals for livestock, pets, where are they? The farmers I know use a process mostly identical to their ancestors from several thousand years ago, only a little more streamlined thanks to more specific egg&#x2F;sperm selection.<p>Yes you can give me niche applications and cool stuff in a lab somewhere, but I&#x27;m asking about people&#x27;s offices, homes, on the streets.<p>The fact is that we&#x27;ve been talking about vat-grown meat and lab-grown replacement organs for 50 years, and they aren&#x27;t here yet. Do we have to wait for another 50?
评论 #12854002 未加载
评论 #12853229 未加载