The article is an attack on Peter Thiel, not SVB. Also seems thin on facts, and just "SVB is getting bailed out, and hence some rich guy stays rich". Given that both the Fed and the Bank of England have decades-old laws protecting the financial system long before (tech) billionaires, this article seems even more ridiculous.
> Today, the magazine is a print–digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal and progressive political position.[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left"[4] but also as "a political and literary magazine" with "sceptical" politics.
>And as far as I can tell the whole SoftBank funded fake tech masquerade thing is starting to melt down, so?
If you think this starts and ends with SoftBank, you're crazy. SoftBank may be the biggest and worst offender, but this stuff is rampant in SV and the VC world. It goes well beyond the last few months.
You can pretend this is exaggeration, but public sentiment is starting to turn.
>What about the New York Economy. What about the DC Economy. What about the Texas Economy.
What about them?
This article is about the Silicon Valley Economy. Are you asserting that the NYT doesn't write articles covering wars or Wall Street scandals or political controversy? Their pages are filled with them. Go read those if that's what you're looking for.
'A company founded by his father in law' is not '[his] family firm', the article doesn't improve from there.
Whoever heard of 'The London Economic' anyway? Seems like a digital tabloid. Flagged because of above, and I can't see what decent discussion can possibly be had between the inevitable political flaming.
Fun thing: I went on twitter to tell him his editor missed fact checking on that completely. Turns out the author of the piece is "Founding editor of Business Insider U.K.".
Update: He has replied and said he would look into it and correct it. Being that he's aware of the discussion here, i suspect other things might get corrected too. :)
> Both companies have pragmatically mixed progressive ideas with more traditional ones such as encouraging internal competition and measuring performance.
Apparently the author and his editors failed to notice that he has already disassembled his straw man before he starts attacking it...
>Paul Graham, a venture capitalist and one of the founders of the startup incubator Y Combinator, would have you believe this rising inequality is a good thing. Or, at very worst, the inevitable consequence of a good thing.
Times like this makes me think that different parties write the article titles than those who write the articles.
"Founders Fund is investing in a number of biotechnology companies to extend human lifespans."
This is a useful and interesting piece of information.
Thiel's belief that's he going to buy his way out of being hit by a bus tomorrow is silly and it's really hard to not make wise-ass comments about it...
That is a pretty awful click-bait title. Presumably the "$0" is in reference to their sub $1 share price?
The fact that they put everything behind a paywall _and_ slap on click-bait titles is confusing to me. I can't imagine paying for access to that type of writing.
Seems like a mainstream article. Not sure what the point of this was? I didn't look at the articles mentioned in this article so if that was your point then let me know so I can review them.
I got a paywall so I could only read part of the article. The first part of the article seems to agree with my point that viewpoint discrimination is in fact happening. I didn't get to anything about newspapers before I got the paywall so I don't know what exact this had to do with what I posted. The article seemed quite mainstream to me though.
> depending on if you consider george will "mainstream"- he is an establishment conservative which certainly is a dissenting viewpoint at the washington post
I am getting a paywall so I couldn't read the article, but it seemed mainstream. Based on what I could gather it sounds like he supports a more fiscally responsible stimulus and to have it targeted to people who actually need it rather than to everybody. Assuming that is the gist of the article then I think that is decently mainstream. I would agree that it is a dissenting viewpoint for the Washington Post though.
>not a newspaper, but a national magazine a front page article with a definitively non-mainstream message
This article was pretty long so I skimmed it (so if I missed an important detail let me know). It sounds like a mainstream message. Gun ownership and protection of oneself with guns is a mainstream message in the US. Maybe it is a bit non-mainstream since the author is a socialist, but nothing stood out as out of the norm.
> I wonder how "Wall Street is not your friend" would play in the NY Times
Well. The New York Times is generally for more financial regulation. If you're calling for a FINRA, SEC, CFPB, House Financial Services Committee, Senate Banking Committee and state-by-state financial services regulatory equivalents for tech, then you'll probably find yourself in agreement with (a) the New York Times, (b) most of the media and (c) a growing fraction of legislators and the American electorate. Partly because of what happened. Largely because of the flippant response the offending companies, and our Silicon Valley culture as a whole, has had to the complaints.
> Honestly am impressed at how wasteful such articles are in how little content they actually contain.
The Economist isn't a tech publication. A lot of the context around tech layoffs is more familiar to HN than the average reader.
The article seems to be 100% content and context to me. No waste at all. You personally just happen to know a lot of the context already. But that doesn't make it "waste".
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Statesman
> Today, the magazine is a print–digital hybrid. According to its present self-description, it has a liberal and progressive political position.[3] Jason Cowley, the magazine's editor, has described the New Statesman as a publication "of the left, for the left"[4] but also as "a political and literary magazine" with "sceptical" politics.
reply