you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 98 points 6 hours ago (4 children)

I don't know what he has against chess, but this is like the 3rd time I've seen him try to convince everyone that it's pointless because of computers.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 22 minutes ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago)

    I enjoy see sport competitions because I like to see what humans are capable of. I don't need a so-called genius to prove that we can create robots running faster than humans. Likewise I don't need to be told that Stockfish is stronger than Carlsen because then what? We should stop playing because a machine is better?

    Also, what does "solving chess mean"? We already have algorithms trying every possible move

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 112 points 6 hours ago (5 children)

    Another classic example that proves this:

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • Lol it means he has the same problem with it that I did: there's absolutely no random element to blame so when you lose you just fucking lose and that's all there is to it. The other person's brain just stepped on your brain and wiped it off on the curb.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 116 points 5 hours ago (2 children)

    What I take from this is "I can't cheat, so I won't play"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 5 hours ago (1 child)

    Oh you can cheat at chess.com. People use engines to suss out the best moves and plug them into their games. Chess.com spots many, but not all of them, you will get notices after the fact that your rating has been changed upwards because they detected them cheating.

    It's quite common.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 56 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    I'm pretty sure it's because he can't stand losing. The man clearly suffers from a narcissistic personality disorder.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    Right? I'm sure he expected to immediately be a god at chess with no studying or practice, then got upset when that wasn't the case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 4 hours ago (1 child)

    Yes, because of his financial success, he considers himself a genius—which he very obviously never was. This is a common trait among billionaires. Many of them are psychopaths who have amassed their wealth through utter unscrupulousness, irresponsibility in the form of an absurd willingness to take risks, and sheer luck.

    In the case of Musk, Thiel, and various others, that stroke of luck was PayPal. That company was so successful that it made all of its investors immeasurably rich—it was more a matter of chance that PayPal succeeded, and everything that followed really wasn’t all that difficult because that kind of money cannot lose anymore no matter how ridiculous stupid someone might be.

    That’s precisely the problem: We only hear about the people who bet everything on one card and won—they’re portrayed as geniuses, which they never were. We never hear anything about all those who failed miserably—and that’s the vast majority.

    Billionaires aren’t geniuses or even above-average in intelligence. Their financial success has, in the rarest of cases, anything to do with intelligence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    Some of them might be considered marketing geniuses, like Jobs was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 hours ago* (3 children)

    I would rather consider Steve Wozniak than Steve Jobs. Jobs was undoubtedly excellent at selling products, and he was certainly a smart (and also ruthless) businessman, but the pioneer—and the one who actually "did the thing"—was Wozniak.

    It’s true, of course, that Wozniak probably wouldn’t have been able to make his product a success on his own, but that’s precisely where the problem lies: Bill Gates is certainly no fool either, but DOS—the product that made Microsoft the billion-dollar-company that it is today—was developed by someone else, namely Gary Kildall. Gates’s achievement consisted mainly of making a lot of money from it. He did just that, and did it well, while Kildall was fobbed off with a ridiculously small sum relative to the product’s success, since he was in a weak position at the time.

    Although Gates was far more technically adept than Jobs, his core qualities were essentially the same—a good sence for business and a utter lack of scruples: Kildall never received a bonus payment from Microsoft for his work that would have even remotely acknowledged his importance.

    There are many people in the IT sector who are worthy of admiration, but almost none of those who truly deserve it are among those the industry or rather the public celebrates as pioneers or visionaries—these are almost exclusively businesspeople who played only a marginal role, if any, in the development of the products they market.

    In my view, success stories like Apple or Microsoft are fundamentally no longer possible today, since visionary spirit, wisdom, and inventiveness have been permanently replaced by the inhuman logic of cutthroat capitalism, which the U.S., above all, embodies. Its heroes are always the wrong ones—not those who have advanced humanity through their achievements, but always those who have known how to exploit others particularly ruthlessly for their own ends. These people lead the Western world today, which is why it stands on the brink of total collapse, since these people know nothing but boundless greed.

    They are utterly unfit to lead millions upon millions of people—yet that is precisely what they seek to do in their pathological hubris.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 45 minutes ago

    I really think Jobs dying was the start of the tech industry enshittification.

    While he was a massive cunt and didn't personally develop the products, he pushed his people to innovate, and the rest of the industry followed to try to keep up.

    Once iPhones became yearly iterative bullshit, the industry followed.

    But Moore's Law slowing down does come into play.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -2 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Did you write that wall of text to say that Wozniak was the marketing genius instead of Jobs?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 hours ago

    He understood the market and knew what products to put there, I'd say he is a genius at that - but imo a marketing genius would be someone who can sell anything no matter how shitty the product is, so i'd say that term would be better fitting for his competitors at Microsoft for example.

  • source
  • parent