Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This post is so weird on so many levels. I'll focus on this part:

    > You can also trace personal backgrounds and you'll see a much higher representation in the newer cohort coming from upper middle class backgrounds with families in careers like finance, consulting, medicine/dentistry whereas more in the older cohort came from more modest middle class backgrounds in engineering, academia, or even working class trades.
So, you reach for class warfare? Sheesh. It is anyone's fault that they are born into an upper middle class family? Are people from lower economic circumstances somehow superior, as you imply? This is just bizarre.

As a reminder: Bill Gates, who is certainly old school tech, was born and raised in an objectively wealthy, well-connected family, then went to Harvard. This is nearly made-for-TV silver spoon stuff.




It is telling that you considered their post to be about class warfare rather than different values.

The original focus of this thread was on technical precision vs. market efficiency, and how quality was sacrificed for faster conversion to sales.

That shift compromises products for everyone by creating a race to the bottom toward the minimum viable product and safety standards. When the consequences eventually hit, the aggregate responsibility and emergent effects lose direct attribution...but they exist all the same.


As the sibling comment noted, I think you might be projecting value judgment onto value distinction.

The most salient values of the later cohort are different than those in the prior ones, and those values do track with the values we associate with those different class backgrounds.

But there's no ranking being made there. They're just different values.

The values of the new cohort have earned the industry a great deal of political, economic, and cultural influence on an international level.

The values of the old cohort didn't do that, except insofar as they built a stage for the new one. They made software differently. They designed products differently. They operated businesses on different scales. They hired differently.

Indeed some of us from the old cohort don't personally savor all the spotlight and influence and cultural drama that Silicon Valley collectively bears now, and miss the way thing were. And others love it. But that's just personal preference, not class warfare.


> So, you reach for class warfare? Sheesh. It is anyone's fault that they are born into an upper middle class family? Are people from lower economic circumstances somehow superior, as you imply?

To be fair, I don't see any value judgements in the post you're replying to. He doesn't say if it's a good or bad thing, it's just a thing. But what I think this means is that field became more popular, entry filters became more competitive, and families with less resources to invest in their offspring became filtered out.

There's nothing good or bad about it.


That’s why the bill gates story got so much public attention. It’s surprising. Their Harvard kid is doing what?


I suppose it may have been surprising to anyone completely out of touch with what was happening at the time.

I'm only a little younger than Gates, and it seemed like, what else would you do? PCs were revolutionizing the world.


A slight addition to this topic. A lot of jobs also became software, even if your intention in signing up for the jobs was different to begin with. PCs were revolutionizing the world.

For about a decade I worked as an engineer in a field where the expectation (at least starting) was that metal gets cut, stuff gets built, and there's physical hardware.

Those existed. May have actually had more hardware interaction than many in engineering. Yet much of the day to day rapidly became computer simulations of the metal that might get cut someday.

In many fields, the organizational choice decrement on anything involving capital expenditure or purchase was so severe that usually the obvious choice was to run a computer model, and simulate what might occur. What else would you do?


> decrement on anything involving capital expenditure

Boy is this true. I don’t think we ever recovered. Imagine trying to start a capital intensive business like mining in 2025.


Frankly a shame. Since there's a been a lot of development in mining technologies over the years.

Even for the folks that have an ecological focus, there's quite a few methods developed with limited degradation of the landscape, and reclamation of the mining sites into alternative uses (park, forestry, entertainment, tourism). The Wieliczka saltmine in Poland's an especially impressive example [1]

[1] https://www.wieliczka-saltmine.com/individual-tourist/touris...

And these days, there's also a huge number of resources in terms of mineral identification and site mapping. The EMIT Imaging Spectrometer from NASA's a cool example that does remote satelite mineral identification from orbit. [2]

[2] https://earth.jpl.nasa.gov/emit/instrument/overview/




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: