There's three names in that title, and none of them are explained in the tiny slice of an article that's free. Am I expected to just know who these random people are?
>Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire over racist, anti-Muslim remarks posted on social media.
> In a tweet about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Maguire said Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.” Maguire later doubled down on his remarks and responded to public criticism with vague threats, writing to one individual critical of his remarks, “You may not know this… but I’ve been watching you.”
Shaun Maguire is a partner at Sequoia who has become an outspoken right-wing commentator online and large GOP donor. His recent comments that the Sequoia COO quit over was about the democrat front runner candidate for NYC Mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
> Following Trump's felony conviction last year, Maguire announced he'd back Trump in the 2024 election and would write his campaign a $300,000 check. In total, he donated about $800,000 to Republican causes last year, according to data from Open Secrets. Once Trump was elected, Maguire aided in the transition by interviewing candidates for positions in the defense department, The New York Times reported.
There’s a big fuss over a potential mayor of New York that has the right losing their minds. To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions. Truly bizarro world stuff.
> To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions.
Isn't that rational? If you found that a colleague had views you found personally abhorrent AND you had the luxury of being able to walk away from the job, wouldn't you?
The tragedy of modern work life (and the current job market!) is that the vast majority of people do not have that luxury, and hence are stuck in the jobs they hate. But I expect the COO of a large VC probably has several lifetimes' worth of that luxury stashed away.
People should either keep their opinions to themselves or not allow it to be tied to their corporation. If my employer was tied to shitbird comments like Sequoia is now, I'd quit also.
This is true, but it's also fair to complain about someone on HN linking to a one-sentence headline on a paywalled site. It approaches ill manners, imho.
I recall Shaun Maguire trying to interfere with European politics, specifically supporting AfD in Germany. Instantly lost my admiration towards Sequoia, the image I previously had about them was something like calm, deeply analytical grown ups. Turns out they are into petty daily politics that will not go anywhere other than stir drama, at least this Shaun guy. Still feels bad when I think about it, disillusionment is painful.
Since when social unrest is good for business? Africa, the Balkans and the middle east must be printing money then with their decades long identity politics and divisions.
Good for business for companies like the German Fox News: Nius, led by the former chief editor of Germany‘s worst „newspaper“ Bild: Julian Reichelt financed by the founder of CompuGroup Medical: Frank Gotthardt
Thanks. The full page cookie consent with no "essential only" had me turning away from the article. No cookies are persistent in my browser but the lack of perceived choice is still irritating.
An edge lord is being deliberately provocative for attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgelord), but Shaun Maguire instead is just expressing his actual opinion, which is worse in my opinion.
Looked at Shaun Maguire's twitter page and I find it appalling. Maybe I was naive about people in tech being more tolerant (as they both work with and build for diverse people).
> Maguire, an outspoken and high-profile investor who is close to Elon Musk, wrote on X in July that New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda. The West will learn this lesson the hard way.”
Balbale complained to other senior partners at the firm, who declined to take action against Maguire, arguing he was just exercising his right to free speech, the people said. She left soon after, feeling her position was untenable.
If the same quote replaced 'Islamist' with another faith, would it have also been brushed off as "right to free speech"?
Christians will always denigrate other faiths by stating all of the faithful adhere to a literal reading of those faith's religious texts, and claiming to adhere to a literal reading of their own religious texts while simultaneously denying all contradictions, appeals to violence, hate, and despotism found within.
Except you can’t. The Quran contains passages along these lines along with other things like the exploitation of female captives and booty distribution from the spoils of war (including female captives). So, what you suggested is spurious reasoning and a false equivalence. We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very [Edit: sexual slavery and exploitation of women and minors] segments of their core texts. Almost to the extent of a UN resolution denouncing these passages in the Quran by all democracies and Middle Eastern monarchies.
> exploitation of female captives and booty distribution
Oh dear! That's quite concerning.
It certainly would be a pretty terrible thing if someone capable of exploiting female captives and "distributing booty" acquired a position of power in the USA.
> The Quran contains passages along these lines along with other things like the exploitation of female captives and booty distribution from the spoils of war (including female captives).
Let's please not get started about sexism in major religions. The New Testament is rife with sexism, as even a cursory Google search would have revealed to you. Here's just one example:
Ephesians 5:22–24: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church... Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands".
Unless you are willing to scrutinize other religions as you would Islam, then you are being intellectually lazy at best, a bigot at worst.
The Quran addresses the topic of concubines using the term "ما ملكت أيمانكم" (those whom your right hands possess), which refers to female slaves or captives. Several verses mention this category in the context of marriage, sexual relations, and social rights:
In Surah An-Nisa (4:3), the Quran says: ﴾وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ﴿ ("...but if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry] only one or those whom your right hands possess...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā....
In Surah An-Nisa (4:24), the verse states: ﴾وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ﴿ ("And [forbidden to you are] married women except those whom your right hands possess...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā....
In Surah An-Nisa (4:25), the Quran allows marriage to believing slave women: ﴾وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنْكُمْ طَوْلًا أَنْ يَنْكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ﴿ ("And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave women...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā....
In Surah Al-Mu’minun (23:5-6): ﴾وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ﴿ ("And those who guard their private parts except from their wives or those whom their right hands possess...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā....
In Surah Al-Ahzab (33:50): ﴾وَمَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ مِمَّا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ﴿ ("...and those whom your right hand possesses from what Allah has given you as booty...") Marāḥ Labīd li-kashf maʿnā al-Qurʾā....
These verses establish the legal and social framework regarding concubines (female slaves) in the Quranic context, always using the phrase "ما ملكت أيمانكم" rather than a direct term for "concubine" Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā...
Islam literally teaches that women/sex is a reward to good Muslims. Islams actually defines the female slave markets in it's version of heaven. It literally enshrines women being merely sex objects to be a reward for good Muslim men.
Islam's version of Jesus literally had sex slaves, taken from cities he himself personally wages war against.
Different religions have different points of view, and it's OK to point that out and to say 'these things suck and make me not think very highly of the religion or it's followers'.
This site does that with Mormonism and Scientology. We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
I probably agree with you on more things religious than not. Having said that, I was correcting OP, who strongly suggested that Islam was uniquely misogynist by quoting a couple passages from the Quran.
What I think is really interesting is that the some of the strongest currents in Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all converging on the subjugation of women, especially the control of their bodies and their sexuality.
> We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
A helpful reminder to you that Christianity was founded by a man who never married, never had children, and lived poor his whole life. Something literally no one within Christianity espouses today. It is ignorant to assume that Muslims all aspire to live like Mohammad when virtually no Christians aspire to live like Christ.
Islams founder's take differs quite a bit from Christianity's founder's take. We should be able to point that out without being called racist/bigot/receiving down votes. One had sex slaves, one did not marry and instead treated the world as his children.
Virtually every Christian I know aspires to be as Christ like as they can. You may not see that in their actions, but in their beliefs they definitely aspire to that. Are you saying Muslims don't hold their prophet in high regard? The prophet is just symbolic?
Christians believe you should wait until marriage for sex. So they very much preach item 2 you list.
Most Christians I know follow item 3 and literally espouse it. That you should not be greedy. You should not take advantage of others. You should live life for a moral purpose, for entry to heaven, not material gain.
Christianity teaches that you can't be Jesus, that is the point of the religion. You can't be a god. You can only be the best flawed human you can, and that is good enough, and you are forgiven for those flaws, IF you TRY to be better than your base nature. It teaches that Christs life was that of a god, and yet he still took time to take care of/see the lowest among us. Not that his life was one we can do, but definitely one we should aspire to. Does Islam not teach you should aspire to be like their prophet? That his morality should be an inspiration?
The west is freely accepting of calling out Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology. But we can't examine/be critical of Islam. That is not OK. I've known way more Muslims than Scientologists. It is not a foreign/abstract religion, but a real religion present in our communities. There is a lot in Islam that needs to be called out and processed by the Muslim faithful. Tom Cruise can be called out on his faith. Mitt Romney had his faith called out a ton and that was OK. Catholics get called out all the time for being Catholic. We can call out other religions too without it suddenly being racist/bigoted. No, it's calling out if a religion has some crappy beliefs/justifications and saying 'I'm not sure about a person who believes these things as a core part of their identity'.
All that said I would love to see Mamdani as mayor of New York. His religion/acts done under it shouldn't define him, just like with Tom Cruise, Mitt Romney. We're all people making our way, not caricatures defined externally.
> Virtually every Christian I know aspires to be as Christ like as they can. You may not see that in their actions, but in their beliefs they definitely aspire to that.
This is a nonsense statement. It's trivially obvious how to be "Christ like": Live poor, help the disenfranchised, feed the hungry, heal the wounded, don't marry, don't have kids, and preach the gospel, if only to a small number of people.
If the Christians you know don't live like that, then they are not being "Christ like." To say they are while they do the opposite -- work to get rich, get married and have big families, confine their spiritual work to Sunday mornings, occasionally giving to charity (or only to their own church) -- is to believe that words have no meaning at all.
I'm sure the people you think of as "Christ like" are by and large perfectly wonderful human beings. But this whole discussion was sparked by a powerful man at Sequoia making reductive statements about all of Islam based on a few quotations from the Quran. At some point we have to admit that the way people practice religion does not necessarily follow what's written in their texts. And to suggest, as others have in this very thread, that because Mohammad married had multiple wives means that all of his followers want to as well, is as ignorant as assuming that all Christians want to live like Christ actually lived.
The Quran is held by Muslims as 'the perfect word of God'. It is treated much differently than the Christian bible which gets somewhat loosely translated into many languages.
As the perfect word of God, quotations from it ARE THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD. How is talking about what someone believes is the exact and perfect words of God off limits/racist/bigoted? How is saying that 'Gods perfect representative on earth' having sex slaves makes me call the beliefs of followers of Islam in to question racist/bigoted? I want to know if someone is OK with sexual slavery. A religion that talks about when it gives out sex slaves/sex as a reward to good men makes me have questions about how someone who believes that sees women. Believe me, I struggle with it. The founders of my country were awful men who raped female slaves themselves. I struggle with how do I incorporate 'good parts' of their ideology when they were vile human beings. But I think it is important to challenge that, to ask that question, especially of myself and my nation. I can't imagine if that was my founding religious leader.
Asking 'what about Thomas Jefferson raping his understage slave' isn't being racist. It's legit 'how do you reconcile these things'. It's hugely informative.
Islam is a much more mainstream American religion than Scientology. There are only maybe 50,000 Scientologists in the US. There are around 3.5 million Muslims. I should be able to talk about Islam with at least the same criticality.
Please understand my culture is to challenge religions/religious people/politicians/admired figures, not just Muslims. Muslims, because they believe the Quran is the perfect word of God, are in a tough spot when their perfect word of God says things like lying or sexual slavery are OK. Just like Americans when their 'freedom fighter' founders also had literal sex slaves. But that does not mean we should not challenge. I get it's really hard for Muslims because they can't challenge 'the perfect word of God' but that doesn't make it bigoted/racist to say 'this person's religion says it is the perfect word of god that they can lie about this how do I know they are telling the truth'.
In the US, we reformed, we did away with slavery. We condemn the actions of our founders. Islam being the perfect word of God with it's perfect messenger on earth can't really condemn nor phase these things out. So how public political figures reconcile these things is very valid to bring up.
A) Ephesians is not found in the Old Testament; it is a letter written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. It addresses themes of grace, unity, and the church's role in God's plan, which are not specifically covered in the Old Testament.
B) The section you reference outlines the biblical perspective on the roles within marriage. The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act, reflecting the relationship between Christ and the church. the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles. This section serves as a foundation for discussions on marriage, emphasizing both the responsibilities and the spiritual significance of the marital relationship.
As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally. This is also why we have hundreds, if not thousands of flavors of Christianity - they all interpret the bible differently because many of the translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar.
A) I'm well aware Ephesians is not found in the Old Testament; that's why I chose it. These verses are specific to Christianity, just as anything from the Quran would be specific to Islam.
B) "The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act" What is written in any faith's texts is imposed on its followers, whether it was intended to be voluntary or not. We can only speculate how many millions of women were instructed to submit to their husbands as if he was God himself. This indoctrination starts as soon as children are old enough to attend church and continues as long as they go to church. There are obviously progressive leaders in any faith, but that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule.
"the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles" The dominant view among Christians in America today is "complementarianism", which sounds a lot like what you're saying. It's designed to appear at first glance as equality, but really means that women are restricted to domestic grunt work while men control all the levers of power: All roles of authority in the church, in business, and of course still telling what their wives and children to do at home.
The fact that you even say "honor and respect *each other's roles" strongly suggests you believe that a woman's role is to be, in essence, subjugated to her husband, limited to giving birth, raising children, and taking care of all the husband's emotional and logistical needs. Correct me if I'm wrong!
"As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally... translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar."
This is a fine perspective to have. But OP was happy to demonize all of Islam based on a few quotes with seemingly no account of their historical or religious context. Virtually any religion can be
>As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally. This is also why we have hundreds, if not thousands of flavors of Christianity - they all interpret the bible differently because many of the translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar.
Including many who don't have this perspective on scripture.
I mean, the Bible has God himself lying to Adam. God says do not eat this fruit - because if you eat it you'll die immediately. And later of course Adam eats the fruit, and of course he doesn't die, because actually God was lying about that.
The general position of Christians seems to be that God lying is OK, however lying to them is a sin. But, Christians lie all the time, so, seems like actually the rule is "Lie but pretend it's a sin if anybody else does it" which is consistent with God and their own behaviour and indeed consistent with lying about Mamdani...
Are you really claiming that Christianity and Judiasm have no problematic passages about slavery, women, and war? Where is your handwringing about all the Christian politicians - shouldn't there be a UN resolution denouncing the problematic passages of the Bible? Or are you being willfully ignorant so you can continue to be Islamophobic?
Edit: First address the wrong in question. And a phobia is an irrational fear. What’s the sentence for apostasy or blasphemy in this faith? It’s death. That’s a very valid, rational fear.
That's not a whataboutism. OP brought up the topic that saying these things about Islam is as valid as saying these things about other religions. You're trying to make the point that Islam is uniquely bad ("Except you can't [replace Islam in that quote with another religion].") in the ways that Maguire said. It is therefore on topic for someone to then point out passages from other holy texts which suggest that those religions might be similarly bad.
> We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very discriminatory segments of their core texts
and then ignored that most politicians in the US are not Muslim. So again I'm asking you - do you actually believe what you wrote (for all religions), or are you singling out Mamdani and his religion because you're a bigot? I'm having your "honest discussion."
Edit: your original response was just the first sentence, and the edit added that you're scared of Muslims. Not sure that's the flex you think it is.
If you want an "honest discussion" then be honest about your reasons for being scared of Islam and not the other religions which dominate US politics. Pointing out your hypocrisy in singling out Muslims isn't "whataboutism" - it's the honest debate you're looking for.
Oh, so an "emotional appeal"? That's also a logical fallacy btw.
This is about your personal fears of a candidate's religion and not his actions. Otherwise (if this were actually about your fear of indoctrination and dogma) you'd be spouting this same rhetoric for all politicians who believe in Abrahamic religions. Again, hypocrisy. Or did I miss where you said Christianity should be singled out and denounced by the UN?
They hate Islamism too, why do you think they had Qatar under a blockade. They see it as a threat to their autocracy. This sensitiveness is a Western thing or maybe would be a problem for Turkey or Qatar.
Maguire said that Mamdani "comes from a culture that lies about everything. It's literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda. The West will learn this lesson the hard way."
Maguire is a MAGA supporter, so the projection of lying is... interesting.
Can you share examples of MAGA lies? I've found Trump's administration to be quite truthful, saying exactly what they are going to do and why. On the other hand, I still don't know why Biden's administration didn't enforce border security, nor what to believe about Biden's cognitive decline, nor why they can't define what a woman is.
So you think the immigrants are eating pets, the No-Kings demonstrations were Hate America rallied, Antifa is an organization, Portland and Washington are out of control crime cities and that Tylenol caused autism?
And that’s only the lies that came to my mind while typing.
This one baffles me. Obviously it is - not a national one, but there are plenty of regional organizations/groups using that name[1][2] who share similar goals/methods. This is akin to saying that "Anonymous" didn't exist back in the day - even though you had people organizing on 4chan to do collective action (mostly against Scientology) under that banner.
There are Antifa organizations but not the Antifa organization like Trump and his government claim.
Anonymous is a good example, there is no Anonymous organization, people just spontaneously grouped under the label Anonymous. So two actions by Anonymous could actually mean completely different people.
Do you think the group in your first link is a terrorist organization? They are not the Antifa, they are just antifascist organization. It’s an adjective not the name of a structured group like Hamas.
And if you are contra fascism you are antifa too, so good luck
The real problem is that Sequioa is so well regarded, and they control so much money, it is really hard to criticize them. You could say, you have options as an public LP, but you also don’t.
One of the issues with folks like that, is that they often consider themselves to be "Übermensch," and thus, cannot be held to the same standards as others (I won't use the other "-mensch" term, because that would Godwin the discussion).
Not just really smart people. Very rich people (usually second-or-beyond-generation rich. First-generation rich folks aren't usually that way -unless they are polymaths).
They feel that they can say whatever the hell they want, and no one can hold them to account (and they are frequently correct).
Apparently https://shaunmaguire.fyi - he's monstrous, to be curt, being a wealthy and powerful bigot:
- said some bigoted things on X about Islam (the entire religion) and
- some racist and culturally stereotyping / xenophobic / Islamophobic stuff by "[Mamdani is brown therefore he is XYZ culture which itself is a bad culture]" (my summary also from the X tweet) logic.
I think Elon is right about the idea of mind viruses. He just hasn't taken the premise far enough. All of us are infected by the algorithms around us, MAGA, Woke, MAHA ect. are all "mind viruses".
I doesn't matter how smart, compassionate, empathetic, creative or dynamic you are. As soon as you expose yourself to the algorithms you become infected. The more exposure the deeper the infection.
The idea that people are affected by their experiences is hardly novel. You don't need to dress it up as "mind viruses" and claim it is an "infection".
Yeah, sounds like parent is talking about "opinions" and "beliefs", something humans famously can't agree with one another about for as long as we've existed.
The tricky part is figuring out how to still collaborate and live side by side with people you vehemently disagree with.
What? Enough with the buzzy words. You are talking about ideas. And the more you stray from science and logic to justify your ideas, the more cognitive dissonance you will encounter.
This dude really says some things without even analyzing how degressive they are; really tone deaf, pompous and disrespectful to large swaths of people. I mean, at least post this from your anime pfp alt account.
I'm not sure this direct departure matters that much to Sequoia. The COO Balbale was an operating partner who was CMO of Sequoia for 2 years and then COO for another 2 years and to my understanding did not write checks. The real elephant in the room question was whether Balbale was in a role getting carry or not. If not, then that effectively isn't different from an incentive level than an associate with a higher salary (but no real skin in the game). If so, then that means that carry was actually given up and it probably means more.
In contrast, Maguire (like other partners at Sequoia who are actually writing checks) has skin in the game through the checks he writes and whether they pan out or they don't. In light of that, setting aside his views (which you may agree or disagree with politically), I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not, but his track record suggests that he's not having problems with his deal flow as a result.
That said -- the material comment at the end of the article does make a lot of sense. While this departure may not affect Sequoia that much, Maguire's position may sour many of the Middle East sovereign wealth funds that form some of the largest parts of Sequoia's LP base. If their discontent with Maguire's rhetoric ends up being more important to them than Sequoia's returns, that may well pose a far more material issue to Sequoia and they will be forced to act.
> I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not
why is it that tech bros will bend over backwards to find "good-faith" interpretations of the most obviously stupid shit. like bro have you literally never heard the phrase "confirmation bias"? you know it's possible he could just be a lucky idiot right?
> In an interview with the Caltech Heritage Project, Maguire reported that he earned a 1.8 GPA in high school and failed his Algebra 2 course, and that his admission to Stanford University depended on letters of recommendation.
There's three names in that title, and none of them are explained in the tiny slice of an article that's free. Am I expected to just know who these random people are?
this seems like the relevant information:
>Sequoia Capital partner Shaun Maguire over racist, anti-Muslim remarks posted on social media.
> In a tweet about New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Maguire said Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda.” Maguire later doubled down on his remarks and responded to public criticism with vague threats, writing to one individual critical of his remarks, “You may not know this… but I’ve been watching you.”
https://ca.cair.com/press-release/cair-calls-for-firing-of-s...
https://archive.ph/CNJkT
Shaun Maguire is a partner at Sequoia who has become an outspoken right-wing commentator online and large GOP donor. His recent comments that the Sequoia COO quit over was about the democrat front runner candidate for NYC Mayor, Zohran Mamdani.
This article has some details: https://www.businessinsider.com/shaun-maguire-sequoia-vc-gop...
> Following Trump's felony conviction last year, Maguire announced he'd back Trump in the 2024 election and would write his campaign a $300,000 check. In total, he donated about $800,000 to Republican causes last year, according to data from Open Secrets. Once Trump was elected, Maguire aided in the transition by interviewing candidates for positions in the defense department, The New York Times reported.
It’s New Yorker shit
There’s a big fuss over a potential mayor of New York that has the right losing their minds. To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions. Truly bizarro world stuff.
> To the point where people are quitting over other peoples opinions.
Isn't that rational? If you found that a colleague had views you found personally abhorrent AND you had the luxury of being able to walk away from the job, wouldn't you?
The tragedy of modern work life (and the current job market!) is that the vast majority of people do not have that luxury, and hence are stuck in the jobs they hate. But I expect the COO of a large VC probably has several lifetimes' worth of that luxury stashed away.
In this economy that’s a big AND…
People should either keep their opinions to themselves or not allow it to be tied to their corporation. If my employer was tied to shitbird comments like Sequoia is now, I'd quit also.
Wholeheartedly agree.
It’s foul on both sides. One for a partner to use that platform as a soap box for hate.
The other, having to deal with the fallout and just quitting. Ruining their flow and possibly upending their lives.
Standing up for what’s right sometimes costs you everything.
>It’s New Yorker shit
Two of the three principals in this story are based in California and employed by a Californian firm.
No, you're expected to subscribe to the publication.
Sir, you posted this reply from a device that gives you instant access to all extant knowledge.
This is true, but it's also fair to complain about someone on HN linking to a one-sentence headline on a paywalled site. It approaches ill manners, imho.
An archive.is link was the first comment on the page, nearly an hour before yours
I recall Shaun Maguire trying to interfere with European politics, specifically supporting AfD in Germany. Instantly lost my admiration towards Sequoia, the image I previously had about them was something like calm, deeply analytical grown ups. Turns out they are into petty daily politics that will not go anywhere other than stir drama, at least this Shaun guy. Still feels bad when I think about it, disillusionment is painful.
It makes sense to support AfD in Germany if you care about building businesses.
The world could stand a few less of that type of business and more of a few who don't sow hatred.
The AfD can only point at problems but has no solutions.
The economic policies of Weidel and Höcke contradict each other.
They are only high in the polls because they don’t actually have to do anything.
Since when social unrest is good for business? Africa, the Balkans and the middle east must be printing money then with their decades long identity politics and divisions.
Good for business for companies like the German Fox News: Nius, led by the former chief editor of Germany‘s worst „newspaper“ Bild: Julian Reichelt financed by the founder of CompuGroup Medical: Frank Gotthardt
https://archive.is/hmBAF
Thanks. The full page cookie consent with no "essential only" had me turning away from the article. No cookies are persistent in my browser but the lack of perceived choice is still irritating.
Easy to be comfortable disagreeing when it doesn't affect you personally what happens with the positions you espouse.
[dead]
If I had to classify the current era we're in, it'd be the "Age of the Edgelords".
An edge lord is being deliberately provocative for attention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgelord), but Shaun Maguire instead is just expressing his actual opinion, which is worse in my opinion.
Looked at Shaun Maguire's twitter page and I find it appalling. Maybe I was naive about people in tech being more tolerant (as they both work with and build for diverse people).
That was previously the case from my perspective as well, but it seems to be rapidly changing.
Large amount of money simply shows what a person truly is. It enhances the personality that’s already there.
Islamophobia is like yesterday Judophobia but with way more benefits
> Maguire, an outspoken and high-profile investor who is close to Elon Musk, wrote on X in July that New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani “comes from a culture that lies about everything. It’s literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda. The West will learn this lesson the hard way.” Balbale complained to other senior partners at the firm, who declined to take action against Maguire, arguing he was just exercising his right to free speech, the people said. She left soon after, feeling her position was untenable.
If the same quote replaced 'Islamist' with another faith, would it have also been brushed off as "right to free speech"?
Islamism isn't a faith. Islam is a faith.
Islamism is also neither a 'culture' nor a reasonable characterization of Mamdani's political programme.
His program is actually pretty Christian imo.
Christians will always denigrate other faiths by stating all of the faithful adhere to a literal reading of those faith's religious texts, and claiming to adhere to a literal reading of their own religious texts while simultaneously denying all contradictions, appeals to violence, hate, and despotism found within.
[flagged]
I read it as "substitute for shintoism".
Go breath into a bag.
[dead]
Except you can’t. The Quran contains passages along these lines along with other things like the exploitation of female captives and booty distribution from the spoils of war (including female captives). So, what you suggested is spurious reasoning and a false equivalence. We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very [Edit: sexual slavery and exploitation of women and minors] segments of their core texts. Almost to the extent of a UN resolution denouncing these passages in the Quran by all democracies and Middle Eastern monarchies.
> exploitation of female captives and booty distribution
Oh dear! That's quite concerning.
It certainly would be a pretty terrible thing if someone capable of exploiting female captives and "distributing booty" acquired a position of power in the USA.
One shudders to even imagine such a situation.
> The Quran contains passages along these lines along with other things like the exploitation of female captives and booty distribution from the spoils of war (including female captives).
Let's please not get started about sexism in major religions. The New Testament is rife with sexism, as even a cursory Google search would have revealed to you. Here's just one example:
Ephesians 5:22–24: "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church... Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands".
Unless you are willing to scrutinize other religions as you would Islam, then you are being intellectually lazy at best, a bigot at worst.
The Quran addresses the topic of concubines using the term "ما ملكت أيمانكم" (those whom your right hands possess), which refers to female slaves or captives. Several verses mention this category in the context of marriage, sexual relations, and social rights: In Surah An-Nisa (4:3), the Quran says: ﴾وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ أَلَّا تَعْدِلُوا فَوَاحِدَةً أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ﴿ ("...but if you fear that you will not be just, then [marry] only one or those whom your right hands possess...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā.... In Surah An-Nisa (4:24), the verse states: ﴾وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ النِّسَاءِ إِلَّا مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ﴿ ("And [forbidden to you are] married women except those whom your right hands possess...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā.... In Surah An-Nisa (4:25), the Quran allows marriage to believing slave women: ﴾وَمَنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ مِنْكُمْ طَوْلًا أَنْ يَنْكِحَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ فَمِنْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُكُمْ مِنْ فَتَيَاتِكُمُ الْمُؤْمِنَاتِ﴿ ("And whoever among you cannot [find] the means to marry free believing women, then [he may marry] from those whom your right hands possess of believing slave women...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā.... In Surah Al-Mu’minun (23:5-6): ﴾وَالَّذِينَ هُمْ لِفُرُوجِهِمْ حَافِظُونَ إِلَّا عَلَى أَزْوَاجِهِمْ أَوْ مَا مَلَكَتْ أَيْمَانُهُمْ﴿ ("And those who guard their private parts except from their wives or those whom their right hands possess...") Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā.... In Surah Al-Ahzab (33:50): ﴾وَمَا مَلَكَتْ يَمِينُكَ مِمَّا أَفَاءَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْكَ﴿ ("...and those whom your right hand possesses from what Allah has given you as booty...") Marāḥ Labīd li-kashf maʿnā al-Qurʾā.... These verses establish the legal and social framework regarding concubines (female slaves) in the Quranic context, always using the phrase "ما ملكت أيمانكم" rather than a direct term for "concubine" Al-qawāʿid al-fiqhiyya ʿinda al-Ibā...
Islam literally teaches that women/sex is a reward to good Muslims. Islams actually defines the female slave markets in it's version of heaven. It literally enshrines women being merely sex objects to be a reward for good Muslim men.
https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Houri_(Heavenly_Virgin)
Islam's version of Jesus literally had sex slaves, taken from cities he himself personally wages war against.
Different religions have different points of view, and it's OK to point that out and to say 'these things suck and make me not think very highly of the religion or it's followers'.
This site does that with Mormonism and Scientology. We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
I probably agree with you on more things religious than not. Having said that, I was correcting OP, who strongly suggested that Islam was uniquely misogynist by quoting a couple passages from the Quran.
What I think is really interesting is that the some of the strongest currents in Christianity, Judaism and Islam are all converging on the subjugation of women, especially the control of their bodies and their sexuality.
> We can also do this with Islam too, a religion founded by a slaver war monger who had sex slaves, and whose teachings say women are a sexual reward.
A helpful reminder to you that Christianity was founded by a man who never married, never had children, and lived poor his whole life. Something literally no one within Christianity espouses today. It is ignorant to assume that Muslims all aspire to live like Mohammad when virtually no Christians aspire to live like Christ.
Islams founder's take differs quite a bit from Christianity's founder's take. We should be able to point that out without being called racist/bigot/receiving down votes. One had sex slaves, one did not marry and instead treated the world as his children.
Virtually every Christian I know aspires to be as Christ like as they can. You may not see that in their actions, but in their beliefs they definitely aspire to that. Are you saying Muslims don't hold their prophet in high regard? The prophet is just symbolic?
Christians believe you should wait until marriage for sex. So they very much preach item 2 you list.
Most Christians I know follow item 3 and literally espouse it. That you should not be greedy. You should not take advantage of others. You should live life for a moral purpose, for entry to heaven, not material gain.
Christianity teaches that you can't be Jesus, that is the point of the religion. You can't be a god. You can only be the best flawed human you can, and that is good enough, and you are forgiven for those flaws, IF you TRY to be better than your base nature. It teaches that Christs life was that of a god, and yet he still took time to take care of/see the lowest among us. Not that his life was one we can do, but definitely one we should aspire to. Does Islam not teach you should aspire to be like their prophet? That his morality should be an inspiration?
The west is freely accepting of calling out Christianity, Mormonism, Scientology. But we can't examine/be critical of Islam. That is not OK. I've known way more Muslims than Scientologists. It is not a foreign/abstract religion, but a real religion present in our communities. There is a lot in Islam that needs to be called out and processed by the Muslim faithful. Tom Cruise can be called out on his faith. Mitt Romney had his faith called out a ton and that was OK. Catholics get called out all the time for being Catholic. We can call out other religions too without it suddenly being racist/bigoted. No, it's calling out if a religion has some crappy beliefs/justifications and saying 'I'm not sure about a person who believes these things as a core part of their identity'.
All that said I would love to see Mamdani as mayor of New York. His religion/acts done under it shouldn't define him, just like with Tom Cruise, Mitt Romney. We're all people making our way, not caricatures defined externally.
> Virtually every Christian I know aspires to be as Christ like as they can. You may not see that in their actions, but in their beliefs they definitely aspire to that.
This is a nonsense statement. It's trivially obvious how to be "Christ like": Live poor, help the disenfranchised, feed the hungry, heal the wounded, don't marry, don't have kids, and preach the gospel, if only to a small number of people.
If the Christians you know don't live like that, then they are not being "Christ like." To say they are while they do the opposite -- work to get rich, get married and have big families, confine their spiritual work to Sunday mornings, occasionally giving to charity (or only to their own church) -- is to believe that words have no meaning at all.
I'm sure the people you think of as "Christ like" are by and large perfectly wonderful human beings. But this whole discussion was sparked by a powerful man at Sequoia making reductive statements about all of Islam based on a few quotations from the Quran. At some point we have to admit that the way people practice religion does not necessarily follow what's written in their texts. And to suggest, as others have in this very thread, that because Mohammad married had multiple wives means that all of his followers want to as well, is as ignorant as assuming that all Christians want to live like Christ actually lived.
The Quran is held by Muslims as 'the perfect word of God'. It is treated much differently than the Christian bible which gets somewhat loosely translated into many languages.
As the perfect word of God, quotations from it ARE THE PERFECT WORD OF GOD. How is talking about what someone believes is the exact and perfect words of God off limits/racist/bigoted? How is saying that 'Gods perfect representative on earth' having sex slaves makes me call the beliefs of followers of Islam in to question racist/bigoted? I want to know if someone is OK with sexual slavery. A religion that talks about when it gives out sex slaves/sex as a reward to good men makes me have questions about how someone who believes that sees women. Believe me, I struggle with it. The founders of my country were awful men who raped female slaves themselves. I struggle with how do I incorporate 'good parts' of their ideology when they were vile human beings. But I think it is important to challenge that, to ask that question, especially of myself and my nation. I can't imagine if that was my founding religious leader.
Asking 'what about Thomas Jefferson raping his understage slave' isn't being racist. It's legit 'how do you reconcile these things'. It's hugely informative.
Islam is a much more mainstream American religion than Scientology. There are only maybe 50,000 Scientologists in the US. There are around 3.5 million Muslims. I should be able to talk about Islam with at least the same criticality.
Please understand my culture is to challenge religions/religious people/politicians/admired figures, not just Muslims. Muslims, because they believe the Quran is the perfect word of God, are in a tough spot when their perfect word of God says things like lying or sexual slavery are OK. Just like Americans when their 'freedom fighter' founders also had literal sex slaves. But that does not mean we should not challenge. I get it's really hard for Muslims because they can't challenge 'the perfect word of God' but that doesn't make it bigoted/racist to say 'this person's religion says it is the perfect word of god that they can lie about this how do I know they are telling the truth'.
In the US, we reformed, we did away with slavery. We condemn the actions of our founders. Islam being the perfect word of God with it's perfect messenger on earth can't really condemn nor phase these things out. So how public political figures reconcile these things is very valid to bring up.
[dead]
A) Ephesians is not found in the Old Testament; it is a letter written by the Apostle Paul in the New Testament. It addresses themes of grace, unity, and the church's role in God's plan, which are not specifically covered in the Old Testament.
B) The section you reference outlines the biblical perspective on the roles within marriage. The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act, reflecting the relationship between Christ and the church. the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles. This section serves as a foundation for discussions on marriage, emphasizing both the responsibilities and the spiritual significance of the marital relationship.
As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally. This is also why we have hundreds, if not thousands of flavors of Christianity - they all interpret the bible differently because many of the translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar.
A) I'm well aware Ephesians is not found in the Old Testament; that's why I chose it. These verses are specific to Christianity, just as anything from the Quran would be specific to Islam.
B) "The concept of submission is presented as a voluntary act" What is written in any faith's texts is imposed on its followers, whether it was intended to be voluntary or not. We can only speculate how many millions of women were instructed to submit to their husbands as if he was God himself. This indoctrination starts as soon as children are old enough to attend church and continues as long as they go to church. There are obviously progressive leaders in any faith, but that tends to be the exception, rather than the rule.
"the biblical view encourages understanding it as a partnership where both spouses honor and respect each other’s roles" The dominant view among Christians in America today is "complementarianism", which sounds a lot like what you're saying. It's designed to appear at first glance as equality, but really means that women are restricted to domestic grunt work while men control all the levers of power: All roles of authority in the church, in business, and of course still telling what their wives and children to do at home.
The fact that you even say "honor and respect *each other's roles" strongly suggests you believe that a woman's role is to be, in essence, subjugated to her husband, limited to giving birth, raising children, and taking care of all the husband's emotional and logistical needs. Correct me if I'm wrong!
"As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally... translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar."
This is a fine perspective to have. But OP was happy to demonize all of Islam based on a few quotes with seemingly no account of their historical or religious context. Virtually any religion can be
>As with many things in the bible, they are symbolic, and not to be taken literally. This is also why we have hundreds, if not thousands of flavors of Christianity - they all interpret the bible differently because many of the translations and interpretations differed wildly from scholar to scholar.
Including many who don't have this perspective on scripture.
I mean, the Bible has God himself lying to Adam. God says do not eat this fruit - because if you eat it you'll die immediately. And later of course Adam eats the fruit, and of course he doesn't die, because actually God was lying about that.
The general position of Christians seems to be that God lying is OK, however lying to them is a sin. But, Christians lie all the time, so, seems like actually the rule is "Lie but pretend it's a sin if anybody else does it" which is consistent with God and their own behaviour and indeed consistent with lying about Mamdani...
Jesus lies in John 7:8-10
Jesus violently acts out in Matthew 21:12-13
Slavery is encouraged in Exodus 21:2-11
The crusades were done in the name of Christianity, with the consent of the Church.
The Catholic Church has been involved in numerous sexual assault of minors over the past 50 years alone.
We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very segments of their core beliefs.
Are you really claiming that Christianity and Judiasm have no problematic passages about slavery, women, and war? Where is your handwringing about all the Christian politicians - shouldn't there be a UN resolution denouncing the problematic passages of the Bible? Or are you being willfully ignorant so you can continue to be Islamophobic?
This tactic is known as “whataboutism”.
Edit: First address the wrong in question. And a phobia is an irrational fear. What’s the sentence for apostasy or blasphemy in this faith? It’s death. That’s a very valid, rational fear.
That's not a whataboutism. OP brought up the topic that saying these things about Islam is as valid as saying these things about other religions. You're trying to make the point that Islam is uniquely bad ("Except you can't [replace Islam in that quote with another religion].") in the ways that Maguire said. It is therefore on topic for someone to then point out passages from other holy texts which suggest that those religions might be similarly bad.
Uh no it isn't - you literally said
> We need to have an honest discussion for those arguing in favor of this faith about their positions on these very discriminatory segments of their core texts
and then ignored that most politicians in the US are not Muslim. So again I'm asking you - do you actually believe what you wrote (for all religions), or are you singling out Mamdani and his religion because you're a bigot? I'm having your "honest discussion."
Edit: your original response was just the first sentence, and the edit added that you're scared of Muslims. Not sure that's the flex you think it is.
If you want an "honest discussion" then be honest about your reasons for being scared of Islam and not the other religions which dominate US politics. Pointing out your hypocrisy in singling out Muslims isn't "whataboutism" - it's the honest debate you're looking for.
I am an ex Muslim. And yes, I fear the indoctrination and dogma it fosters in people. It kills countries and generations of innocent lives.
Oh, so an "emotional appeal"? That's also a logical fallacy btw.
This is about your personal fears of a candidate's religion and not his actions. Otherwise (if this were actually about your fear of indoctrination and dogma) you'd be spouting this same rhetoric for all politicians who believe in Abrahamic religions. Again, hypocrisy. Or did I miss where you said Christianity should be singled out and denounced by the UN?
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Shaun+Maguire
I don't see how this is a tolerable situation when all of the cash is coming from islamic petrostates.
They hate Islamism too, why do you think they had Qatar under a blockade. They see it as a threat to their autocracy. This sensitiveness is a Western thing or maybe would be a problem for Turkey or Qatar.
Apparently he isn’t the one that deals with them (its in the final paragraph).
Maguire said that Mamdani "comes from a culture that lies about everything. It's literally a virtue to lie if it advances his Islamist agenda. The West will learn this lesson the hard way."
Maguire is a MAGA supporter, so the projection of lying is... interesting.
Can you share examples of MAGA lies? I've found Trump's administration to be quite truthful, saying exactly what they are going to do and why. On the other hand, I still don't know why Biden's administration didn't enforce border security, nor what to believe about Biden's cognitive decline, nor why they can't define what a woman is.
As a large language model, I completely agree with you.
So you think the immigrants are eating pets, the No-Kings demonstrations were Hate America rallied, Antifa is an organization, Portland and Washington are out of control crime cities and that Tylenol caused autism?
And that’s only the lies that came to my mind while typing.
> Antifa is an organization
This one baffles me. Obviously it is - not a national one, but there are plenty of regional organizations/groups using that name[1][2] who share similar goals/methods. This is akin to saying that "Anonymous" didn't exist back in the day - even though you had people organizing on 4chan to do collective action (mostly against Scientology) under that banner.
[1] https://rosecityantifa.org
[2] https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/forming-an-antifa-gr...
The explicit comparison that started the contemporary discussion about Antifa was to MS-13 and Hezbollah, which is fractally inane.
There are Antifa organizations but not the Antifa organization like Trump and his government claim.
Anonymous is a good example, there is no Anonymous organization, people just spontaneously grouped under the label Anonymous. So two actions by Anonymous could actually mean completely different people.
Do you think the group in your first link is a terrorist organization? They are not the Antifa, they are just antifascist organization. It’s an adjective not the name of a structured group like Hamas.
And if you are contra fascism you are antifa too, so good luck
For all of the worship these guys get for being mega geniuses, they sure say a lot of ignorant shit.
If we're talking about Sequoia, I think you'd be hard-pressed to find something more entertaining than this fawning puff piece on Sam Bankman-Fried
https://web.archive.org/web/20221027181005/https://www.sequo...
Highlights: https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/101sjn2/imagine_b...
The real problem is that Sequioa is so well regarded, and they control so much money, it is really hard to criticize them. You could say, you have options as an public LP, but you also don’t.
One of the issues with folks like that, is that they often consider themselves to be "Übermensch," and thus, cannot be held to the same standards as others (I won't use the other "-mensch" term, because that would Godwin the discussion).
Not just really smart people. Very rich people (usually second-or-beyond-generation rich. First-generation rich folks aren't usually that way -unless they are polymaths).
They feel that they can say whatever the hell they want, and no one can hold them to account (and they are frequently correct).
Apparently https://shaunmaguire.fyi - he's monstrous, to be curt, being a wealthy and powerful bigot:
- said some bigoted things on X about Islam (the entire religion) and
- some racist and culturally stereotyping / xenophobic / Islamophobic stuff by "[Mamdani is brown therefore he is XYZ culture which itself is a bad culture]" (my summary also from the X tweet) logic.
How much of this zeitgeist is fueled by Elon’s ketamine dependency issues? Certainly non zero!
[dead]
This article should NOT be flagged
People are in down-vote wars on this article. It makes it so much more appealing to use x.com for conversation.
Maybe we need to decouple downvote wars from the content of the article?
I think Elon is right about the idea of mind viruses. He just hasn't taken the premise far enough. All of us are infected by the algorithms around us, MAGA, Woke, MAHA ect. are all "mind viruses".
I doesn't matter how smart, compassionate, empathetic, creative or dynamic you are. As soon as you expose yourself to the algorithms you become infected. The more exposure the deeper the infection.
The idea that people are affected by their experiences is hardly novel. You don't need to dress it up as "mind viruses" and claim it is an "infection".
Yeah, sounds like parent is talking about "opinions" and "beliefs", something humans famously can't agree with one another about for as long as we've existed.
The tricky part is figuring out how to still collaborate and live side by side with people you vehemently disagree with.
It's not experiences anymore, just engineered content.
What? Enough with the buzzy words. You are talking about ideas. And the more you stray from science and logic to justify your ideas, the more cognitive dissonance you will encounter.
These are all symptoms of a larger rot within society. Frankly I am a bit scared.
This dude really says some things without even analyzing how degressive they are; really tone deaf, pompous and disrespectful to large swaths of people. I mean, at least post this from your anime pfp alt account.
Some people have never heard “no” and it shows.
lol anyone with an anime pfp can likely just be doxxed through a sex offender registry.
[dead]
[flagged]
Entirely wrong about which part?
[flagged]
He is accusing a group of people of deception. An entire group.
I'm not sure this direct departure matters that much to Sequoia. The COO Balbale was an operating partner who was CMO of Sequoia for 2 years and then COO for another 2 years and to my understanding did not write checks. The real elephant in the room question was whether Balbale was in a role getting carry or not. If not, then that effectively isn't different from an incentive level than an associate with a higher salary (but no real skin in the game). If so, then that means that carry was actually given up and it probably means more.
In contrast, Maguire (like other partners at Sequoia who are actually writing checks) has skin in the game through the checks he writes and whether they pan out or they don't. In light of that, setting aside his views (which you may agree or disagree with politically), I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not, but his track record suggests that he's not having problems with his deal flow as a result.
That said -- the material comment at the end of the article does make a lot of sense. While this departure may not affect Sequoia that much, Maguire's position may sour many of the Middle East sovereign wealth funds that form some of the largest parts of Sequoia's LP base. If their discontent with Maguire's rhetoric ends up being more important to them than Sequoia's returns, that may well pose a far more material issue to Sequoia and they will be forced to act.
> I view his controversy as being most likely a calculated marketing maneuver to improve or maximize the signal to noise in his deal flow. It's hard for me as an outsider to say whether that's working for him or not
why is it that tech bros will bend over backwards to find "good-faith" interpretations of the most obviously stupid shit. like bro have you literally never heard the phrase "confirmation bias"? you know it's possible he could just be a lucky idiot right?
> In an interview with the Caltech Heritage Project, Maguire reported that he earned a 1.8 GPA in high school and failed his Algebra 2 course, and that his admission to Stanford University depended on letters of recommendation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaun_Maguire
[dead]