← Back to context

Comment by nialv7

3 days ago

This smells a lot like a hacker thought because they are exceptional in one field (cybersecurity), they therefore are exceptional in all fields. The result is that information presented in this article is very surface-level, and quite biased.

21 comments

nialv7

Reply
m463  3 days ago

As a much better alternative, I would recommend "debt" by david graeber, which is amazing.

  • hsbauauvhabzb  2 days ago

    Is your comment perhaps in reference to the comment ‘ the assumptions and estimates that go into it, I recommend Financial Intelligence by Joe Knight and Karen Berman’ and not the parent comment you’ve replied to?

    • m463  2 days ago

      lol, good guess. I must have clicked wrong - I thought I was replying to the comment "this is bad, don't read it"

  • ggm  3 days ago

    Graeber is controversial. Archeologists hate how he argues by ad hominem and does not appear to understand the works he cites, to make his argument.

    I can't speak to his work on finance as a whole. Regarding deep time, his claims about pre-literate society from archeology are not widely supported, they use thin evidence to argue badly.

    His anarcho-socialism isn't the concern. It's his lack of historicity, and inability to bring his peers with him on radical ideas which concerns me.

    He's dead, he can't defend himself. So there's that.

    • DavidPiper  3 days ago

      Just in case anyone is put off by this comment, I want to second the recommendation of Debt: The First 5000 Years. It's excellent, and it has as a free, chapter-by-chapter audiobook on YouTube.

      As for Graeber being controversial: yes, though I vaguely recall "The Dawn of Everything" being (moreso) the trove of interesting historical anthropological hypotheses, rather than "Debt"?

      Anyway, it's been a while, but my main point is that I wouldn't let Graeber's controversial-ness stop anyone from reading Debt. If anything, going in with that information makes you think harder about the topics he covers.

      2 replies →

    • gessha  2 days ago

      As a fan of Graeber, I’m interesting in reading counter arguments to his writing. Could you point out where I can read up more about what archaeologists think of his writing?

      1 reply →

beeflet  2 days ago

the only thing it takes to be exceptional in most fields is time and effort. there is no secret sauce. There is not something innate that "finance people" have that "computer people" don't, other than a willingness to trudge through boring finance-related crap and vice-versa.

This is all spawned from insecurity that your prestigious degree or whatever can be replicated through independent learning

hsbauauvhabzb  2 days ago

Being exceptional in cybersecurity is a pretty good indicator that someone will be successful in other fields. A good cybersecurity person will understand that cybersecurity is a mix of technical mastery and the art of understanding human behaviour.

  • aleph_minus_one  2 days ago

    > Being exceptional in cybersecurity is a pretty good indicator that someone will be successful in other fields.

    I am not so certain about this. In particular being exceptional in cybersecurity does not make you good at playing political games or having the traits that a lot of bosses want from employees (I will attempt to avoid starting a discussion whether I consider such traits to be good or bad).