It is pretty clear, if you read Paul Graham's twitter feed, what is it that he wants to say but feels he cannot say. I see where his point of view completely, but having not seen the the other side of privilege: the very real and lived experiences and feelings where cancel culture stems from, I feel this is an issue where he is totally blindsighted. The problem in the US currently, I feel, is not cancel culture per se, but widespread and ever growing narcissism which makes one less questioning about their fundamental worldview than one should be.
Paul Graham is somewhat a victim of this himself.
For example, the assumption behind this very essay is that there is such a thing as a rigid, singular concept of "truth" in the moral, cultural and political sphere, that there is a "fact of the matter" whether a belief (say one PG holds) is correct or not. Or that that we live in a static world where such truths can even exist, and not, in a fluid, dynamic, politically messy world where contrasting viewpoints interact and produce something not something ever lasting, but something which is fragile and must always be fought for, this fight being a necessary feature for a functioning democracy.
But it's kind of moot what he, specifically, wants to say, no? Shouldn't we instead try to work towards a society where no opinion is taboo?
It seems to me that the biggest reason why some opinions are taboo is that we're worried (usually for good reason) they'll find supporters. Instead of making opinions taboo, we should work on an educational system that doesn't let harmful opinions take hold of people.
> Shouldn't we instead try to work towards a society where no opinion is taboo?
There will always be taboo opinions. For example, I can't imagine a civilized society where an opinion like "capital punishment for every minor fault is ok" is not taboo.
> Instead of making opinions taboo, we should work on an educational system that doesn't let harmful opinions take hold of people.
How? I think the problem is that this is impossible at all. Not every opinion is based on reason and education will not be a shield from them.
> I can't imagine a civilized society where an opinion like "capital punishment for every minor fault is ok" is not taboo.
This one isn't. Here, I can say "there should be capital punishment for every minor fault!" and nobody will bat an eyelid. Nobody will agree, which is why it's okay to say this.
"Taboo" means "opinions you can't talk about", not "opinions that won't be popular". Many taboo opinions are extremely popular, such as "homosexuality shouldn't be a crime" a few decades ago.
It's not taboo because you are not taking it seriously. Now, would a newspaper let me write this? Would my family treat me the same if I were serious with this opinion?
Maybe I don't have a good grasp of the cultural context, but it seems to me that you would be much better off tweeting "I believe that capital punishment should be used for even minor crimes" than something like "I think it's okay to own black people".
Hell, I spent a full thirty seconds wondering whether I should even post the latter under my name, even if it's clearly in a hypothetical context and I'm just mentioning it as an example.
> the assumption behind this very essay is that there is such a thing as a rigid, singular concept of "truth"
I don't think that assumption is required by the essay. It says that people with orthodox privilege believe that anything outside their orthodoxy must be untrue. So it merely claims that certain people believe (often falsely) that they can conclude something is untrue because it's unorthodox. A crisp universal definition of truth isn't necessary for them to believe this.
If one gets rid of those assumptions, the whole concept of orthodox privilege would be purely rhetorical.
Here is how this essay would change if you replace "truth" (which does not really exist in the political sphere) by "morally unacceptable to certain groups of people"
"They literally can't imagine a true statement that would get them in trouble." would be replaced by "They literally cannot image a statement which is morally acceptable to certain groups of people (to which they belong) would get them in trouble with those groups of people". Which is completely fair and reasonable.
I've realised the simple things: good diet, restful sleep, ample sunlight, a little exercise, and nourishing friends make a TON of difference, more than any of the things listed.
I also noticed quite a bump up when I actively decided to try to not be a cynical asshole _all_ the time. Meditation, on the other hand, never did it for me.
Scroll down this list of search results (on the search term substack.com) and you'll see a history of submissions by many different users over the last 10 months:
I live in Cambridge and its perfect for my needs, for now. Small university town, everything at bikeable distance, cosmopolitan: if I want to meet a person from any country or experience their cuisine, eveything is available here. London is just an hour away by train. And companies like Microsoft, Apple and IBM have their offices here. The only problem is that in UK its extremely hard to get a sense of community and make new friends - especially with the native Brits, who prefer to be aloof and not really interested in connecting beyond the surface
I lived in Cambridge for 18 months in 1987-88. You should be very very glad of the tech companies there, because there's now a community to be a part of that isn't the university. When I was there (working for Schlumberger out on Madingley Road), there was almost nothing happening in town that wasn't university-related, and if you didn't have an inside connection, you weren't a part of it.
I have a sort-of-cousin who lives there now, and he loves it , though he did find a way into the university crowd anyway.
Shame it's so astronomically expensive. I don't think I could ever afford a nice family house there. Don't really understand where all the lecturers and tech workers live.
True! I think it gets inexpensive very rapidly as one moves away from the centre - and thats where most workers live. I am single so I can afford living near the centre for now.
I found that when I first moved to the area, but it's not too hard to get involved with groups like Makespace, Cambridge Wireless or Cambridge Network, CSAR or the Centre for Computing History to expand your circle.
I don’t think you are missing out, since in my experience you usually only find “pub” friends to drink with, who often have unhealthy drinking habits and don’t become actual friends (albeit I’m faux British: in New Zealand!). Any activity (sport, hobby, work) where you hang with locals gives you the chance to make healthier relationships.
For anyone looking to make friends in a pub, you want to find a pub that is social. Some signals to look for: (a) a very wide range of ages that go there, (b) casual drinkers who are there to socialise rather than get drunk, (c) a single woman can drink at the pub comfortably without getting hit on, (d) not heaving full but rarely empty, (e) no loud music - or even better no music - if any live music it is quiet enough to talk over, (f) not a “popular“ place but a place for locals, and (g) it “feels” like someone’s house rather than a bar. That style of pub is dissapearing, and they are hard to find in large cities, but they do exist and they have a completely different culture.
Edit: if anyone from the Isles can comment on their take on this, I would appreciate it.
True in the past, but a non-issue these days, especially with younger colleagues.
> Also, being "white" helps, I think
Maybe in very provincial communities in parts of the country but not in the major cities - at least not since the 90s onwards. If anything I'd say the UK is one of the more open minded countries I've seen.
Another thing I just remembered. The British have a great love for volunteering. I had a friend who moved to St Albans due to work and volunteered at the de Havilland air craft museum and got good friends of all age groups in the area from that and got to help out on restoring planes.
I think such articles underestimate the ingenuity and detailing that goes into inventions. The idea represented by the science fiction and its execution by science are not the same thing. Case in Point: The dream of human flight must have existed ever since man first looked up at the sky and found it beyond his reach. But to say ancient humans came up with the idea and Da Vinci executed it (unsuccessfully) would be either belittling Da Vinci's designs or the thought and imagination that went into them.
Better to say ancients had some idea (Hindus with flying chariots, Greeks with wings stuck-on with wax etc.), Da vinci had some other idea, and Wright Brothers an altogether different one.
This post is actually written in retrospect with bitterness, so I'd avoid reading too much into it: either as red flags on the author or the company. Memories and lived experiences get colored in hindsight by what happened after. For example, there must have definitely been positives that attracted the author to the company, but they are diminished in memory, crowded out by bitterness.
I wouldn't be so dismissive, and have found it interesting to see how negative most top-level commenters have been. I think it's valuable to look back at the first few bits of information that could have tipped you off early to a negative experience later on. That's how we learn what not to do next time.
I think there's a lot more in this post than you might get at first read. For example, a lot of people are interpreting it as bitter, and it seems to be, but it also communicates some level of unmet basic hopes for the new position. It seems to me like optimism carried her through this period, that only in retrospect were signs that it wasn't meant to be. Likewise, many people are missing the fact that this is a retrospective at all. Without knowing any further context, this story could have literally taken place at any point in her career, and I'm sure many developers on here have similar stories.
Or, in lieu of being able to offer any substantive criticisms is looking to rationalise her failure by locating it with the company as early as possible.
That's an awfully uncharitable view, especially to assume she failed in any way. I don't get the sense that the point of the blog post was to levy substantive criticism at an unnamed company.
Regardless, would you say it's irrational or, to use some words from others: arrogant, techier-than-thou, entitled, autistic, to conclude in retrospect that there were early signs of the company and you not being a good fit? Seems pretty reasonable. It's implied and stated how she tends to react to the process she was tasked with.
I'm in part going off comments made by employees about her attitude.
I mean, I have little idea. I'm not claiming that the negative take is the right one, only that there is some oversight in the author here leading to this article.
I'm very sceptical about an HR on-boarding process, so-described, being a redflag for anyone. As she claims, it's an irrelevant/missable process anyway. The idea its some lens into the company, on this occasion, doesnt stack up.
However you interpret the motivation for writing, I dont buy the "redflag" one.
In some sense I agree with you, but on the other hand I do feel like these are implied caveats. It's perhaps unwise to look too far into an onboarding process as a serious mark against a company. Even companies that invest a lot in this will mess it up. I think it's implied that she didn't do this, simply by consequence of her pushing forward anyway, and her also qualifying it at the end with "red or pink flag".
My sense is that this was something that subsequently stuck out to her, and maybe became a more significant pattern throughout her year at the company. It's what's not said that sort of brings a bit more significance to these particular things, because why else would these things stick out upon reflection?
I've had worse onboarding experiences, that upon getting fired, I looked back on and thought "Wow, maybe next time I'm handed a HP laptop and told that Macs are only for designers, I'll just walk out", because they were significant of events that would later cause me undue turmoil and stress that affected my performance.
The point is, that, yes, sure, show initiative, be a team player, plus be willing to stand up to corporate bullshit, but also work with the givens constructively, etc.
But that doesn't matter if there is noone from the other side (manager, other team members), that help to bring the newcomers into the fold.
How come someone was just given an MBP and let loose on her first days without literal supervison?
There was no desk. Okay, great, how long does that take to solve? Just call someone and grab a chair and sit next to someone on the team.
This whole thing is a parable about the lack of sincere human interaction.
Some commentators are just forwarding wisdom passed down from their ancestors and grandma's. Please mention only stuff what you have personally, empirically validated and invalidated - otherwise this thread is only as good as any random google search.
Paul Graham is somewhat a victim of this himself.
For example, the assumption behind this very essay is that there is such a thing as a rigid, singular concept of "truth" in the moral, cultural and political sphere, that there is a "fact of the matter" whether a belief (say one PG holds) is correct or not. Or that that we live in a static world where such truths can even exist, and not, in a fluid, dynamic, politically messy world where contrasting viewpoints interact and produce something not something ever lasting, but something which is fragile and must always be fought for, this fight being a necessary feature for a functioning democracy.