Imagine a world where most of the powerful people in business and politics were like Larry Page. We'd have ourselves a Star Trek-esque utopia within 30 years. Actually that's kind of what Google campuses remind me of: Starfleet HQ (which is also based in the bay area, hmm....http://i.imgur.com/gPsTC.jpg)
I know my sample size is extremely small, but I tend to believe these qualities help reaching the top, if they are not mandatory.
Sly, idiotic and lazy people eventually fall from the sky.
- The hold that powerful entrenched interests have over government that only maintain a positive status-quo with respect to themselves. But negative for the long term development of society
- The offensive allowance and use of patents and litigation by powerful people with the intention to slow progress lest they become obsolete.
- The lavish displays of opulence despite the fact that people are still starving to death
- The still strong existence of classicism
- The love to hate relationship society has with divas and their transformation from normal people
- The inverse proportional relationship between net-worth and probability of proper enacting of justice
- Concentrations of power in government and finance are not typically associated with honesty. Politicians, lawyers and wall street are not held as paragons of noble behavior.
- The prevalence of dictators and corrupt rulers in developing nations
- The extravagant efforts available and taken by the extremely wealthy to minimizes the relative damage of taxes.
- The paucity of efforts like the X Prize, Gates Foundation, Planetary Resources, Space X.
- The difficulty in ensuring that money given to charities actually end up being used efficiently (powerful less needy people somehow end up getting the lion's share of this aid).
Years of M.I.C. brain washing at work. Star Trek is run by a military Junta. (Did you note?)
Excepting people like Page who got there thanks to technical acumen.
It's like the brilliant quote by Douglas Adams: "Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
I think that's a false dichotomy. Power corrupts and the corrupt get power. Also, it's not binary but rather goes by degrees. Thus the long pursuit of power tends to lead to thorough corruption.
I don't think someone like Page is completely immune to the allure of power, but he may have a high resistance to it.
Caveat: I'm using the term a little loosely - there are different sorts of corruption.
FYI: You can't really tell if someone is genuinely goodhearted by watching them being interviewed by Charie Rose. It's what they do when they know no one is looking that will reveal the true nature of a man.
Big part of society is actually concerned about their privacy. It is not like 99% of people are brainless zombies.
I still can't agree with what Page says about 'personalised results' though. He talks about 'search understanding you' as if it just makes existing search 'better'. But to me search is about 'I know what I'm looking for so I ask for something specific', usually looking for a fairly certain answer. If this involves my search history, or people that I know, I will be able to tell the search platform that when I search, I don't want them to assume this on my behalf - this just makes my results less specific than I originally intended.
Its a bit of a conflation between advertising and search really, they are trying to second guess what I am interested in before I know it, which I'm not sure is very positive.
We (the HN community) are not the target audience for these optimizations. Ever watched your mom type in a search query? It's aweful, sometimes I'm amazed at the results Google can produce for crappy search queries. It's those people that will benefit tremendously from these kind of optimizations.
For us, who do not want the personalised search results, the standard answer has been that we should simply log off and it will be generic. While I do feel that Google should simply make this an account preference (so I don't have to log off from my gmail account just to be able to use search in a fashion I appreciate), I can clearly see and appreciate why Google is going for personalised search.
twilight java pov:"thirteen year old girl"
Go listen to a couple of episodes of Terry Gross’s truly masterful interviews on Fresh Air, or watch interviews by, say, Bill Moyers, and then come back and watch an episode of Charlie Rose. Try paying attention to the different ways they lead an interview, and the resulting differences in the conversation. Often someone will be in the news or have a new book out, and will appear on both Charlie Rose and Fresh Air at about the same time; the Fresh Air interview is always dramatically better.
Sometimes it's unintentionally comical, when he uses his earnest, excited voice to ask a mundane, obvious question to which there's really only a pat answer.
Searching at random, here's a clip of him interviewing Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, etc.):
I love that portentous pause when Rose says "religion and .... business". When the camera cuts to PTA and (especially) DDL in turn, it seems like they may be trying to suppress a giggle.
Terry Gross is certainly a good interviewer for art and culture guests. I agree that she does not get the same quality of quests that appear on Charlie Rose's show. I think that is part of the reason I may have discounted her quality as an interviewer. In light of that I would like to compare the two interviewers. Can you think of any guests who have appeared on both shows recently? Do you think Rose's fawning/pissing on behavior is any different than Gross's interviews with Franken and O'Reilly?
Sorry, I’m not trying to imply that you’d have trouble following the interview. I mean pay special attention to the form of the interview, and the style of the questioning (i.e. watch out for when Terry follows up on something the guest said, when she allows him to keep talking and when she re-centers the conversation. Think about what kinds of insights the she draws out, what she can get him to say that wasn’t pre-planned, etc.), rather than only to the content of what the guest is saying. I think if you pay close attention to the way Charlie interviews, you’ll find yourself wanting to throw something at the screen.
Terry Gross’s interview with O’Reilly was impressively respectful and polite, considering the way he was acting. Asking difficult questions is different from pissing on people. What I mean is, Charlie Rose will ask a guest a question, and then when the answer isn’t what he wants to hear, he’ll parrot back at them effectively “well isn’t what you just said completely wrong, and isn’t it actually like this ....?” What is the guest supposed to say to that?
> Can you think of any guests who have appeared on both shows recently?
Here are some from the last few months:
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=13... http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12336 http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12341
His podcast is great because there's no hard time limit, so he often has a guest take you through their entire life story.
The only place where he perhaps came off uninformed is when he implied that Google hadn't acquired any companies in 2012, when in fact they've acquired dozens. But that's not a very substantive mistake.
We could argue about privacy stuff, but the fact that Facebook allows Yahoo access to the data means that Facebook uses this only as an excuse, all they really care about is giving competition a hard time.
Page doesn't really strike me as the type to invest heavily in appearances.
> it's a bit shocking that a 39-year-old would have hair that gray.
shrug maybe. I've had significant gray hair in my beard since I was 19 or so & my uncles were both bald by 25. Weirder things have happened.
> I guess even running a wildly successful company is stressful.
Probably more so than a failure. At least failures end :-P Having had recently to negotiate various potential outcomes in parallel, with nothing but upside all around, I couldn't believe how incredibly stressful it can be. It's an odd thought to find yourself wishing for (startup) death, to make the stress go away. However, on the other side, most of that type of stress is self-imposed. Maybe the same thing that made him so successful is what made his hair go gray...
They bought Milk (Kevin Rose) & TxVia (some type of mobile payment company)
At the moment it is not slow for me at all. I am getting 2.2MB on a standard tw.rr.com cable connection...
Should be posted soon.