- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
What.
He basically said that Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg’s online spat about having a cage fight makes them role models for children.
Why? Because combat sports can have a healthy place in society.
But… how obtuse do you have to be to equate “combat sports can have a healthy place in society” with “two billionaires having an online dick measuring contest makes them role models for children??”
Andreessen is a crazed numb nuts who bestowed a great gift on us years ago and unfortunately got so rich that he’s been able to pretend to be relevant ever since.
I thought it was a bad headline. I’m still confused after the article
I’m not sure but it seems maybe Andreesen is a reactionary nutjob and total wanker?
On one hand, I agree that little boys roughhousing is probably a good thing. On the other, most of the people who admire combat seem to be the ones who are afraid to actually walk the streets after dark.
They admire combat as long as they can send other people to their deaths.
Some of you may die, but it’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make!
The muscled ancients!!! 🤣
I feel sorry for his mother having to pass that gourd out her pelvis.
I had heard things, but didn’t realize he was such a putz.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Andreessen, who sits on Meta’s board of directors, was asked about the possible fight at the Allen & Company conference, a gathering for the wealthy and well connected in Sun Valley, Idaho.
It “begins with a happy, well-ordered state where people who know their place live in harmony and submit to tradition and their God,” Mark Lilla writes in his 2016 book, “The Shipwrecked Mind: On Political Reaction.” He continues:
What the muscled ancients knew and what today’s flabby whingers have forgotten is that man must cultivate the strength and will to master nature, and other men, for the technological frontier to give way.
He is clear on who they are, in a section titled simply “The Enemy.” The list is long, ranging from “anti-greatness” to “statism” to “corruption” to “the ivory tower” to “cartels” to “bureaucracy” to “socialism” to “abstract theories” to anyone “disconnected from the real world … playing God with everyone else’s lives” (which arguably describes the kinds of technologists Andreessen is calling forth, but I digress).
In exchange for a cleaner environment, we adopted laws effective at modifying, slowing and even stopping traditional “brown” infrastructure seen as threatening environmental quality, such as highways, oil pipelines and industrial facilities.
But the politics of sustainability — as evidenced in legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act — have settled into another place entirely: a commitment to solving our hardest environmental problems by driving technology forward, by investing and deploying clean energy infrastructure at a scale unlike anything the government has done since the 1950s.
The original article contains 2,456 words, the summary contains 255 words. Saved 90%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Chief Ideologist? More like Chief Bullshitter!
… and an egg head.
