Comment by TimorousBestie

25 days ago

From the guidelines: Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

12 comments

TimorousBestie

Reply
csa  25 days ago

Thank you. I’m very familiar with the guidelines. I’ve think I can play my OG card on this one.

I added substantial commentary that makes it more than a “why the down votes?” type of comment.

‘rayiner gets beat on here a bit due to what appears to be his conservative stances on some issues.

While I don’t agree with many of the things ‘rayiner says, we can’t throw the baby out with the bath water if we’re going to have meaningful discussions here — especially ones that are intellectually stimulating.

IMHO, one of the reasons we (in the US) are where we are politically is precisely because we ignore, or downvote, or denigrate views from the opposing side (whichever side that is). It’s not really prudent to blithely downvote a considered and articulate comment without commentary just because you disagree with it or dislike the implications. In the case of hacker news, this type of behavior is antithetical to the goals of the site — intellectually stimulating content.

So, while I appreciate your citation of the rules (which may itself be a middlebrow dismissal), I stick by my original comment, and I look forward to anyone who could reply to it.

  • lovich  24 days ago

    For me it’s because he’s having to go back to the fucking 1970s in reference to Silicon Valley companies instead of what any modern day person thinks of, to refute their point.

    As a piece of historical information, or if we were discussing that time period, cool. The discussion wasn’t about that.

    • onetimeusename  24 days ago

      I don't think it's wrong to go back that far. I think SV is it what it is because of those companies but also the schools, some local charm and quirks, etc. and the same reasoning applies there. The tech companies begot more tech companies basically. Before Meta and Alphabet it was Microsoft and Yahoo and before MS it was Sun and Netscape and before that Oracle maybe and the list keeps going back and add in hacker culture in the Bay Area I guess which existed for a long time. It's a fair thing to point out.

      Immigration to SV is probably a result of SV success not the other way around. Likewise, why would immigrants even come here if there was nothing for them before they arrived? I think the adulation of immigration is historical revisionism. Sure, immigrants now contribute but they did not build SV.

      2 replies →

    • rayiner  24 days ago

      I was responding to the following assertion:

      > A lot of Silicon Valley’s success is attributable to immigrants

      Successful industries stick in particular geographic locations. Why is New York the epicenter of the financial industry? It’s not because it’s the best place you’d choose in 2025. It’s because the city was the country’s preeminent port and stock brokers set up a financial exchange under a Buttonwood tree on Wall Street in 1792.

      Similarly, Silicon Valley’s success traces to its origins in the 1950-1980. Many leading Silicon Valley companies that are still around today were founding back then. So it’s highly relevant that America was able to build Silicon Valley in the first place during and only shortly after a highly restrictive immigration policy.

      But the whole argument is disingenuous. The article is about mass immigration. Silicon Valley’s success has fuck all to do with the millions of immigrants that come in every year illegally or through family reunification. Whatever contribution you think immigration is making to Silicon Valley today can be accomplished with 1/30th of the immigration levels we had over the last few years.

      2 replies →