Because they aren't nearly as clever as they think they are. Having more money to invest or spend does not make you more intelligent. In fact at a certain level it seems like money makes people dumber because they insulate themselves so much from the rest of society and reality. The most intelligent people got the cash they needed for life and either left or are working on their own personally fulfilling projects.
Having enough money to be able to throw bad money after good money until everything somehow works out really is power of SV. Corner the market by dumping and then insert yourself as middleman and then charge as much as you can for anything you provide. And everyone is forced to pay.
Lot of tech companies take a huge cut for relatively little. Or then when you really start calculating price of some SaaS service you end up with pretty staggering figure. Doesn't seem big when you make lot of money by selling same service, but from outside it looks disgusting.
This has worked out for long while. But it remains to be seem if there is change in market coming. After which things might not happen so easily anymore.
Because their skills in one domain are not broadly applicable to others. Someone who is good at one or a few things is not all things. You can also see this in their inability to market AI to the broader public. If they could make a compelling case they, perhaps, wouldn't be facing such a widespread backlash to data centers and the technology generally.
Its a tough ask for any mega corporation to be indifferent to the power an administration can wield against you. Especially one that actively seeks retribution and petty grievances.
And that might take poorly to anyone influential that predicted an election loss for the administration? Maybe to the extent of suing them and/or seeking to prosecute them? Yeah, that computes.
Spines: the more money you have, the harder they are to afford.
I'm beginning to think there's a relation between the two. If you have morals you'd never be a billionaire, your conscience would hate your robber baron behavior too much. But there are probably unnoticed billionaires who are actually quite moral, e.g. Warren Buffett, that is a counterpoint to this idea. (This thought of mine is quite shallow/unresearched, so perhaps under this comment will soon be the reply of how Buffett is an asshole...)
SV has never known the future. All they have ever done is claim that whatever product they are currently developing is the next big thing. Because they say this before their product is released, they can sometimes look like prognosticators when their products succeed.
We’re like slime molds. In a good way. We try all the options, even the ex ante stupid ones, and then crowd resources into the path that works.
That works for innovation. It does not for politics. It fails horribly in governance—see David Sacks and Howard Lutnick right now in respect of compromising Nvidia and national security.
A Dutch reporter made a very tough story on a mother who couldn't afford furniture. And this wasn't some crack addict it was a woman with a job who made 3000 dollars month.
Now if people like that are struggling you know something has gone very wrong.
Clinton once said "it's the economy stupid" but the elite are beyond the economy.
This democratic party is not exactly the same as any other democratic party that's been in power. There's been a pretty clear shift in party beliefs again. Democrats used to be pro tech neolibs, defending Elon on the debate stage while Mitt Romney attacked him, etc. The democratic party now is the one that got betrayed by the oligarchs and has an axe to grind and mandate to grind that axe
> “Move fast and break things” might work in a startup, but it’s a terrible strategy for building reputational goodwill
This is more or less something I've been thinking for a while
We have been moving fast, breaking things, at breakneck speeds for short term gains for way too long. It has been working out financially but ever other metric seems to be struggling. We aren't building secure software. We're not building responsible software. We're maximizing a single pillar at the expense of all other considerations and it's eventually gotta fall apart right?
Edit: It seems to me that SV elite have let themselves get boxed into an echo chamber. They aren't paying attention to what is going on outside their bubble.
1. Trump retaliates against businesses which aren't 100% for him.
2. The amount of money (a few hundred million dollars or whatever spent on the election) was relatively small in Silicon Valley terms.
3. The Democratic politicians won't hold grudges: they will now happily accept all the new cash soon to come from Silicon Valley.
4. The hostility from the public is not because of Silicon Valley's association with Trump; instead it is because of issues like higher electricity rates, loss of privacy, job losses, etc.
#3 is not a given. That money is poison. If Mississippi can go blue then new york can go red. We're just entering a less polarized era of politics. Things have been trending in that direction every election this decade.
One of the things that Americans broadly agree on right now is data centers can go to hell and data centers are just a proxy for tech. Democrats won in primaries and the general by being outspent. Not while being outspent. By being outspent. Just accepting particular categories of donor money sunk primary campaigns and the general in e.g. Texas turned into a referendum on the donors.
Politicians' driving motivation is getting re elected. If that money is toxic they're not touching it. If democrats turned around in Ohio and Texas and accepted data center money after rage against them was specifically the one thing that got them into office, you think they have a snowballs chance in hell of keeping those seats? The GOP just ran that experiment. They betrayed the like specific things said they'd do, and got rewarded with a comical amount of donor money, and fricking Blansas Blexas Blississippi because it turned out voters were like no but we were serious about that tho
#3 was probably more true in 2024 than it is today. Not realizing populism is becoming a bigger factor in both parties is a pretty big miscalculation though. Also media and tech were both common axe grinds in the first Trump term. So maybe they thought they would get ahead of the retribution which they probably did but at the cost of losing the other side. They also miscalculated that Trump will just do stuff even if you thought you paid him off, eg tariffs.
Definitely, and I think it was more true in 2022 than 24, and 20 than 22. Personally for 18 and 16 I feel like I have no idea what has happening. I think sometime around then polarization peaked and started to decline. Like the populist surge with Bernie and Trump (end citizens United/drain the swamp/etc) was 2016 but I don't trust my my own memories of what I felt at that time because what even was the pre pandemic era? Im sure people smarter than me can explain what was happening then and how it relates to now but to an idiot m like my it just feels like stuff was happening, then we all paused, put the world in a blender, shook it up, then hit play.
But since then every election has just felt (I keep qualifying "felt" because these are just the vibes in my bubble) like "can we have less chaos and good economy and [some vision of a government that is less powerful and controlling, anti covid or anti trump corruption or something] and also [a somewhat frustratingly contradictory vision go also, a government that is not inept and gridlocked and gets stuff done] and less war"
"No for real tho"
"No for real tho let me try the guys on the right again"
"No for real tho what about this socialist mayor"
"No for real tho - uhh - this is not working - let's try some mashups. Jesus and single payer healthcare - or - no that's not really a mashup I guess that was sort of his original deal anyway. So uhh, Union Bros, but, they're pro immigration now and hate tarrifs. And what if we had like a younger Bernie type that's on about all the same things but he's Muslim and he calls himself a capitalist. We'll do an old senator in ohio and a young governor in Alaska, and, actually fuck it just reroll everything one of these gotta work" <- we are here
Who TF knows what we're gonna get for 2028s "No like for real tho" but somehow I feel like a dominant driving force is going to involve how stuff is expensive and people don't like war.
If the democrats don't deliver anything after this I think you'll see a wild swing backwards to whoever on the right promises to solve problems but won't solve the problems, and after that I think all bets are off in terms of what happens.
People will have had no rational reason whatsoever to believe that they have any say in the running of the country or whats being done to their lives families and communities. Democracies that don't respond to voters die and absolutely nobody running a company in silicon valley or SF understands the level of utter rage simmering among people.
> The hostility from the public is not because of Silicon Valley's association with Trump; instead it is because of issues like higher electricity rates, loss of privacy, job losses, etc.
Costco did not bend the knee on the anti DEI freak out the GOP went on in 2025 and did not suffer any consequences from Trump admin. Target and Apple couldn’t get on their knees quickly enough and Apple went embarrassingly low.
Because SV is itself a bubble, believing in a utopia of 1,000 people purchasing from themselves that own everything and 7.9 billion people out of work.
The problem is, we have not experienced a serious correction in a long time and if there are no economic solutions to this problem, then may we deserve a crash to make the consequence clear.
So of course people outside of tech [0] are not convinced of AI data centers, i.e (Homes for agents). And no. UBI is not a viable solution to solve this problem in the long term.
Because they aren't nearly as clever as they think they are. Having more money to invest or spend does not make you more intelligent. In fact at a certain level it seems like money makes people dumber because they insulate themselves so much from the rest of society and reality. The most intelligent people got the cash they needed for life and either left or are working on their own personally fulfilling projects.
Exactly, they surround themselves with sycophants and sociopaths and end up insulating themselves from reality.
That’s not unique to SV. The interesting bit is why they’d hitch their wagon to such instability.
Having enough money to be able to throw bad money after good money until everything somehow works out really is power of SV. Corner the market by dumping and then insert yourself as middleman and then charge as much as you can for anything you provide. And everyone is forced to pay.
Lot of tech companies take a huge cut for relatively little. Or then when you really start calculating price of some SaaS service you end up with pretty staggering figure. Doesn't seem big when you make lot of money by selling same service, but from outside it looks disgusting.
This has worked out for long while. But it remains to be seem if there is change in market coming. After which things might not happen so easily anymore.
Because their skills in one domain are not broadly applicable to others. Someone who is good at one or a few things is not all things. You can also see this in their inability to market AI to the broader public. If they could make a compelling case they, perhaps, wouldn't be facing such a widespread backlash to data centers and the technology generally.
Its a tough ask for any mega corporation to be indifferent to the power an administration can wield against you. Especially one that actively seeks retribution and petty grievances.
And that might take poorly to anyone influential that predicted an election loss for the administration? Maybe to the extent of suing them and/or seeking to prosecute them? Yeah, that computes.
Spines: the more money you have, the harder they are to afford.
I'm beginning to think there's a relation between the two. If you have morals you'd never be a billionaire, your conscience would hate your robber baron behavior too much. But there are probably unnoticed billionaires who are actually quite moral, e.g. Warren Buffett, that is a counterpoint to this idea. (This thought of mine is quite shallow/unresearched, so perhaps under this comment will soon be the reply of how Buffett is an asshole...)
The claims are an assertion, not a finding.
Yeah. WTF is this?
>The industry’s misreading of the moment has already punctured one myth Silicon Valley holds dear: that its leaders can always see what’s next.
SV has never known the future. All they have ever done is claim that whatever product they are currently developing is the next big thing. Because they say this before their product is released, they can sometimes look like prognosticators when their products succeed.
We’re like slime molds. In a good way. We try all the options, even the ex ante stupid ones, and then crowd resources into the path that works.
That works for innovation. It does not for politics. It fails horribly in governance—see David Sacks and Howard Lutnick right now in respect of compromising Nvidia and national security.
Wishful thinking and self interest may play a part.
A Dutch reporter made a very tough story on a mother who couldn't afford furniture. And this wasn't some crack addict it was a woman with a job who made 3000 dollars month.
Now if people like that are struggling you know something has gone very wrong.
Clinton once said "it's the economy stupid" but the elite are beyond the economy.
> but the elite are beyond the economy
They may act like it. And the stupider among them believe it. But they aren’t. At least not beyond the political economy.
Did they get the midterms wrong or are you just demonstrating wishful thinking?
Democrats had plenty of terms and yet none of the illegal competitive practices have been stopped. You are being played.
This democratic party is not exactly the same as any other democratic party that's been in power. There's been a pretty clear shift in party beliefs again. Democrats used to be pro tech neolibs, defending Elon on the debate stage while Mitt Romney attacked him, etc. The democratic party now is the one that got betrayed by the oligarchs and has an axe to grind and mandate to grind that axe
> Did they get the midterms wrong
When Alex Karp suddenly claimed to be a progressive after the election, it wasn’t because he got the outcome he was expecting.
Or you are being played.
Honestly you have to be a moron to not have action plans for either side winning. The dude you brought up clearly had.
"Oh I've been in your team all along" is not a convincing action plan.. Maybe if playing cops and robbers with 4 year olds..
Maybe they really can’t distinguish bots?
> “Move fast and break things” might work in a startup, but it’s a terrible strategy for building reputational goodwill
This is more or less something I've been thinking for a while
We have been moving fast, breaking things, at breakneck speeds for short term gains for way too long. It has been working out financially but ever other metric seems to be struggling. We aren't building secure software. We're not building responsible software. We're maximizing a single pillar at the expense of all other considerations and it's eventually gotta fall apart right?
Edit: It seems to me that SV elite have let themselves get boxed into an echo chamber. They aren't paying attention to what is going on outside their bubble.
It wasn't that big of a mistake:
1. Trump retaliates against businesses which aren't 100% for him.
2. The amount of money (a few hundred million dollars or whatever spent on the election) was relatively small in Silicon Valley terms.
3. The Democratic politicians won't hold grudges: they will now happily accept all the new cash soon to come from Silicon Valley.
4. The hostility from the public is not because of Silicon Valley's association with Trump; instead it is because of issues like higher electricity rates, loss of privacy, job losses, etc.
#3 is not a given. That money is poison. If Mississippi can go blue then new york can go red. We're just entering a less polarized era of politics. Things have been trending in that direction every election this decade.
One of the things that Americans broadly agree on right now is data centers can go to hell and data centers are just a proxy for tech. Democrats won in primaries and the general by being outspent. Not while being outspent. By being outspent. Just accepting particular categories of donor money sunk primary campaigns and the general in e.g. Texas turned into a referendum on the donors.
Politicians' driving motivation is getting re elected. If that money is toxic they're not touching it. If democrats turned around in Ohio and Texas and accepted data center money after rage against them was specifically the one thing that got them into office, you think they have a snowballs chance in hell of keeping those seats? The GOP just ran that experiment. They betrayed the like specific things said they'd do, and got rewarded with a comical amount of donor money, and fricking Blansas Blexas Blississippi because it turned out voters were like no but we were serious about that tho
#3 was probably more true in 2024 than it is today. Not realizing populism is becoming a bigger factor in both parties is a pretty big miscalculation though. Also media and tech were both common axe grinds in the first Trump term. So maybe they thought they would get ahead of the retribution which they probably did but at the cost of losing the other side. They also miscalculated that Trump will just do stuff even if you thought you paid him off, eg tariffs.
Definitely, and I think it was more true in 2022 than 24, and 20 than 22. Personally for 18 and 16 I feel like I have no idea what has happening. I think sometime around then polarization peaked and started to decline. Like the populist surge with Bernie and Trump (end citizens United/drain the swamp/etc) was 2016 but I don't trust my my own memories of what I felt at that time because what even was the pre pandemic era? Im sure people smarter than me can explain what was happening then and how it relates to now but to an idiot m like my it just feels like stuff was happening, then we all paused, put the world in a blender, shook it up, then hit play.
But since then every election has just felt (I keep qualifying "felt" because these are just the vibes in my bubble) like "can we have less chaos and good economy and [some vision of a government that is less powerful and controlling, anti covid or anti trump corruption or something] and also [a somewhat frustratingly contradictory vision go also, a government that is not inept and gridlocked and gets stuff done] and less war"
"No for real tho" "No for real tho let me try the guys on the right again" "No for real tho what about this socialist mayor" "No for real tho - uhh - this is not working - let's try some mashups. Jesus and single payer healthcare - or - no that's not really a mashup I guess that was sort of his original deal anyway. So uhh, Union Bros, but, they're pro immigration now and hate tarrifs. And what if we had like a younger Bernie type that's on about all the same things but he's Muslim and he calls himself a capitalist. We'll do an old senator in ohio and a young governor in Alaska, and, actually fuck it just reroll everything one of these gotta work" <- we are here
Who TF knows what we're gonna get for 2028s "No like for real tho" but somehow I feel like a dominant driving force is going to involve how stuff is expensive and people don't like war.
If the democrats don't deliver anything after this I think you'll see a wild swing backwards to whoever on the right promises to solve problems but won't solve the problems, and after that I think all bets are off in terms of what happens.
People will have had no rational reason whatsoever to believe that they have any say in the running of the country or whats being done to their lives families and communities. Democracies that don't respond to voters die and absolutely nobody running a company in silicon valley or SF understands the level of utter rage simmering among people.
> The hostility from the public is not because of Silicon Valley's association with Trump; instead it is because of issues like higher electricity rates, loss of privacy, job losses, etc.
Why not both? Or rather, all?
> Democratic politicians won't hold grudges: they will now happily accept all the new cash soon to come from Silicon Valley
I think one could single handed defeat a Democrat in a primary based on their receiving funds from certain now-verboten Silicon Valley names.
Costco did not bend the knee on the anti DEI freak out the GOP went on in 2025 and did not suffer any consequences from Trump admin. Target and Apple couldn’t get on their knees quickly enough and Apple went embarrassingly low.
Because SV is itself a bubble, believing in a utopia of 1,000 people purchasing from themselves that own everything and 7.9 billion people out of work.
The problem is, we have not experienced a serious correction in a long time and if there are no economic solutions to this problem, then may we deserve a crash to make the consequence clear.
So of course people outside of tech [0] are not convinced of AI data centers, i.e (Homes for agents). And no. UBI is not a viable solution to solve this problem in the long term.
[0] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8n50w445zgpo
Nobody who's lived through the last three years still seriously believes in UBI, do they?