[csouzaf]

It's crazy to see the repercussions of the talk he gave at Stanford, even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel. I thought the talk was great. I remember in the talk he said something like this, but he was being really open about what normally happens in these types of companies. I think the problem is that he, as someone in a position of power, was too open about it?

[FireBeyond]

> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel

Stanford is an ... interesting place, it seems. I read that if you filtered for Stanford in the Forbes 30 Under 30 lists, they were most notable for having been accused/charged/convicted of stealing/scamming more money than their companies have generated revenue, to a ratio of nearly 3:1.

[shrubble]

Why was it made private? Isn’t the whole idea of a university to allow different opinions and views to be made available?

[csouzaf]

I don't know exactly why, but I suspect it's because of the repercussions that started popping up in the news just after the release. The talk was given 1 month prior to the publication of the video, so it was already a little outdated

[bugglebeetle]

> I thought the talk was great.

The talk was effectively how to be a criminal sociopath with some minor technology set dressing, so please elaborate on its greatness.

[csouzaf]

I really liked the openness he presented about himself. He talked to a bunch of students about things he knew, with little filter, that's it

[mistrial9]

> It's crazy

that is a phrase often used by people who are appealing to an invisible sense of "us versus them", emphasizing that the crazy thing-person-event is "not us" ?

> even after the video was made private by the Stanford YouTube channel

private conversations among the very powerful is exactly the topic.. so this seems a bit of a Freudian slip

> I thought the talk was great.

I am one of "us" so why so much upset from "them" ? Can we get some social mutual-assurance that "them" are so wrong, and "us" is OK (and continue to be wealthy) ?

> he was being really open about what normally happens in these types of companies

normal ! this is normal ! why are "them" so upset when this is obviously normal, right ?!

> I think the problem is that he, as someone in a position of power, was too open about it?

clearly we need to keep up the secret conversations among the wealthy and powerful ?

[csouzaf]

Sorry, mate. I'm really not immersed in the English-speaking world, so I don't exactly understand the use of 'crazy'. I just see this word being used and used it here. What I meant was that I think what he said was perfectly normal C-level talk, and that's it. I hope my words don't resonate badly

Really, I was just commenting something completely honest about what I thought.

[createaccount99]

cool dissection, thanks