I noticed that nothing stressed him -- he would push people and get angry and annoyed, but it was all externalized and not internalized. He's worth billions, but never does _anything_ that normal people would consider fun. For him, the work is his fun. I have great respect for the work and the success, but it's hollow in context of it all.

Musk has a name re: Space based on accomplishments, hands down. Branson's move extends the Virgin enterprises, and Bezos has a similar business plan and track record as Branson. But now comes Woz, older and much later to the game, and with no background of experience.

His name, face, and personality will bring in investors, though, I'm sure.

It gets confusing with countries like China, Japan, and India, which are more racially homogeneous, and where the country name is the same as the (common) name of the predominate racial groups.

Plus, Facebook is indeed a harmful product for society at large (like cigarettes), and often has bigger negative impacts on younger users (again like cigarettes).

The combination of these is obviously bad...but Facebook knowing it and hiding the fact is very much (again) like what tobacco companies did.

So only human overpopulation is impossible, you're saying. I think you're wrong on that. We're special relative to other species -- but not that special, and not immune to it.

"In the grand scheme of things, we - humanity - know mostly how to create a sustainable technological system that can support 10B population. Whether our politics will allow us to get to such a system is a entirely different problem, and THAT might be our undoing, but I'd argue that's not really an overpopulation problem."

Is the goal to pack as many humans onto this planet as is possible?? That certainly isn't my goal, at all. With our technology, we don't need vast numbers with which to build pyramids or plant fields.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28511845

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

Uber drivers I've talked to didn't join because they were desperate -- they joined to have more freedom and control.

One approach is to split up the company in to separate entities. Search, YouTube, advertising, technology products and OSs, etc...

"Population Control" is certainly controversial, though, as it should be. And, though controversial, it should be considered seriously. Many environmentalists lose their credibility by speaking of "sustainability" on the one hand, but then disputing overpopulation on the other. We need to impact the earth much less, and keeping our numbers down is a very effective way of doing so. That, plus using energy and resources more cleanly and efficiently.

[1] https://biologydictionary.net/overpopulation/

Not one single sentence of that paragraph is true.

When an academic wins a Nobel prize, they have achieved a pinnacle of expertise. No, they've achieved celebrity status (perhaps well-earned by being a top expert). There are those who are experts, but who do not get Nobel prizes. It's not a perfect prize.

They seem to be making a bid to become an elite. They don't get the prize because the ask for it or buy it, and the celebrity status comes with it automatically. Some recipients capitalize on it, for sure. I think "the elites" bring them into their circles on their own.

Because we all respect and want to associate with elites far more than with experts. No, we all don't.

For example, when a journalist writes a popular book on science...the rest of us are far more interested in hearing them talk on the subject than the scientists they write about. I think many (maybe not enough, for sure) don't see 'journalists' as scientific experts. For your Sanjay Guptas it may be true, but he's not a true journalist .