He does seem to be a bit of a psychopathic personality from what I've read of him, and the way he operates Facebook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tundraboy
There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myapplelove
Time will say nothing but I told you so, as a poet once said, I think you ve made the right choices, if more people made such choices the world would be a better place.
More telling is the way most younger people use Facebook and Twitter nowadays and their new perceptions of "privacy". Now that's disconcerting.
You can always question a dubious leader, but I find it interesting to observe their droves of followers (wow, Twitter pun unintended).
I haven't seen the movie, but the fact that the actor playing him looks 100% less obnoxious and has a 100% less "punch me in the face" face, looks like a plus.
I thought it was an interesting but fairly average movie. The actor that played Zuckerberg put in a good performance though, the other actors were kinda meh... Except for Justin Timberlake, who intentionally or unintentionally portrayed, quite well, what a douche the Napster guy was (whether the Napster guy is like that in real life, I don't know).
I was asserting a little poetic license. But, as you called me on it, I did a little research, and I think "sociopath" is more apt, actually. Though I'm not gonna stringently argue this point simply because the difference between the two "-paths" are still debated among psychologists.
So, because of the ambiguity, I'm gonna stick with my poetic license.
Hmmm. A social network run by a sociopath. Interesting, disconcerting and, oh, the irony!!!
not so disconcerting if you consider how "social" FB really is...
From my mac's dictionary:
social: "relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure"
I'm not a crazy FB user either, but honestly, "activities", "people meet", "pleasure"??..
MZ may be a sociopath, but he did realize what many people need, i.e. a way to be "heard" by your x000 "friends" (= people you've seen 1.5 times in your life -- if ever) when all you have to say is "had cold pizza and warm beer for breakfast" -- some might even sympathize!..
I was asserting a little poetic license. But, as you called me on it, I did a little research, and I think "sociopath" is more apt, actually. Though I'm not gonna stringently argue this point simply because the difference between the two "-paths" are still debated among psychologists.
I'm getting tired of this "it's about communication" and "it's influencing culture" argument. Social networking isn't about communication, it's about advertising. Saying social networking is a cultural revelation makes it sound altruistic, when it's really about selling crap.
I rarely log on to FB, and then usually when some family member's posting has been called to my attention. Yesterday my login was greeted by a screen from FB that offered a quick way to recover my password if I would give them my phone number. If I gave them the number, they also would be happy to text or call me with my password if I wanted. Yeah ... sure. How slimy can these guys get - using false pretenses to obtain my phone number for marketing or God knows what other purposes? It's not hard to find a phone number through different online directories, but our voluntarily providing it to Facebook is tantamount to inviting home invasion.
I rarely log on to FB, and then usually when some family member's posting has been called to my attention. Yesterday my login was greeted by a screen from FB that offered a quick way to recover my password if I would give them my phone number. If I gave them the number, they also would be happy to text or call me with my password if I wanted. Yeah ... sure. How slimy can these guys get - using false pretenses to obtain my phone number for marketing or God knows what other purposes? It's not hard to find a phone number through different online directories, but our voluntarily providing it to Facebook is tantamount to inviting home invasion.
Yeah. That was pretty insidious of them. Even more so that it was positioned as a "SECURITY ALERT!!!" Certainly the more savvy users will see through that BS and not give their personal phone numbers, but the more naïve/trusting users will actually believe that and gladly give Facebook their phone numbers, because, of course Facebook is concerned for their safety and security!!
What... sort of like what you are doing right now. Gee... I didn't know that everything written on this board was relevant to the conversation... I'll have to be more careful.
I think the comparisons are inevitable and stem from the similarities between the two men (especially Steve Jobs 1.0, before he returned to Apple). Both were very young, took the industry by storm, were insanely rich super fast, incredibly brash and irreverent, etc.
The comparisons are inevitable. It doesn't mean they're correct.
It's like every time there's an up-and-coming NBA superstar (re: LeBron, Kobe, etc.), there's the inevitable MJ comparisons.
It doesn't mean the comparison is apt. Personally, I doubt there will ever be another MJ, the same way I doubt there will ever be another Steve Jobs.
Taking the NBA analogy further, Kobe 1.0 (the Shaq era, before he mellowed) tried VERY hard to BE Michael Jordan. He emulated he perceived notions about Jordan and, well, failed to be the same level of player. Kobe 2.0 has become more of a team player, and has risen closer than anyone else to Jordan plateau, but he needs another championship in his post-prime career to really deserve any comparisons. Simply having rings isn't enough.
Similarly, Zuckerberg 1.0 seems like he's trying pretty hard to be the next Steve Jobs. I mean, it's either Jobs or Gates, right? Who else's success would you strive to imitate in the tech sector? Of the two, Jobs is a lot "cooler" than Gates. However, Zuckerberg 1.0 is emulating Jobs 1.0, as opposed to the wizened post-return Jobs 2.0. Further, he's only emulating what he perceives Jobs to be like and is focusing on being "successful" (like Kobe 1.0 focused on rings). It remains to be seen whether there will be a Zuckerberg 2.0.
I saw this coming. If it's so great that Steve behaves the way he does, then why shouldn't everyone behave the same way? After all, shouldn't everyone aspire to greatness? So let's have every manager and CEO start behaving like Steve Jobs and Dr. House.
Because most CEOs are narcissistic ego maniacs and will not emulate someone else.
this guy is a fucking moron, he 'd wished he 'd take after Steve, but...lol...everyone who knows anything, knows enough not to compare this spoilt narrow minded shit with Steve.
Lol, Steve compared to Zuckerberg, it;s like comparing Jesus to some, well, unimportant shit.
Every interview with Steve, shows a visionary, a guy inspiring other people, but Zuckerberg.... is someone almost all people who know what's going on wouldn't hire him to empty a trash bin, every interview of his, shows a colossal moron. And when I say colossal, I mean COLOSSAL. No art, no flair, no brains, no panache, no nothing.
Its a well known fact he's a social misfit. Who the hell are you that you feel entitled for him to sound to your liking? There are many evil people that will come off as intelligent, friendly, witty, and even charming. Are you going to forget that he oppresses people because he's good at interviews?
Comments
He does seem to be a bit of a psychopathic personality from what I've read of him, and the way he operates Facebook.
There is one big difference between Jobs and Zuckerberg. Born in the fifties and child of the idealistic sixties, Jobs may be an a$$ but he has a moral compass, and it is evident in the way Apple is run. Zuckerberg on the other hand doesn't seem to have any ability to distinguish right from wrong and that's also evident in the way Facebook is run.
Time will say nothing but I told you so, as a poet once said, I think you ve made the right choices, if more people made such choices the world would be a better place.
More telling is the way most younger people use Facebook and Twitter nowadays and their new perceptions of "privacy". Now that's disconcerting.
You can always question a dubious leader, but I find it interesting to observe their droves of followers (wow, Twitter pun unintended).
I haven't seen the movie, but the fact that the actor playing him looks 100% less obnoxious and has a 100% less "punch me in the face" face, looks like a plus.
I thought it was an interesting but fairly average movie. The actor that played Zuckerberg put in a good performance though, the other actors were kinda meh... Except for Justin Timberlake, who intentionally or unintentionally portrayed, quite well, what a douche the Napster guy was (whether the Napster guy is like that in real life, I don't know).
Whether He existed or not is irrelevant to being "bigger than Jesus".
Who said it was relevant?
Who said it was relevant?
Why would you post something that was irrelevant?
He wrote "psychopath", not "sociopath".
Boy, I can't slip anything past you!
I was asserting a little poetic license. But, as you called me on it, I did a little research, and I think "sociopath" is more apt, actually. Though I'm not gonna stringently argue this point simply because the difference between the two "-paths" are still debated among psychologists.
So, because of the ambiguity, I'm gonna stick with my poetic license.
so maybe this article shouldn't have been written at all
This.
Hmmm. A social network run by a sociopath. Interesting, disconcerting and, oh, the irony!!!
not so disconcerting if you consider how "social" FB really is...
From my mac's dictionary:
social: "relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure"
I'm not a crazy FB user either, but honestly, "activities", "people meet", "pleasure"??..
MZ may be a sociopath, but he did realize what many people need, i.e. a way to be "heard" by your x000 "friends" (= people you've seen 1.5 times in your life -- if ever) when all you have to say is "had cold pizza and warm beer for breakfast" -- some might even sympathize!..
Boy, I can't slip anything past you!
I was asserting a little poetic license. But, as you called me on it, I did a little research, and I think "sociopath" is more apt, actually. Though I'm not gonna stringently argue this point simply because the difference between the two "-paths" are still debated among psychologists.
Psyco-, socio- take your pick.
I'm getting tired of this "it's about communication" and "it's influencing culture" argument. Social networking isn't about communication, it's about advertising. Saying social networking is a cultural revelation makes it sound altruistic, when it's really about selling crap.
I rarely log on to FB, and then usually when some family member's posting has been called to my attention. Yesterday my login was greeted by a screen from FB that offered a quick way to recover my password if I would give them my phone number. If I gave them the number, they also would be happy to text or call me with my password if I wanted. Yeah ... sure. How slimy can these guys get - using false pretenses to obtain my phone number for marketing or God knows what other purposes? It's not hard to find a phone number through different online directories, but our voluntarily providing it to Facebook is tantamount to inviting home invasion.
I rarely log on to FB, and then usually when some family member's posting has been called to my attention. Yesterday my login was greeted by a screen from FB that offered a quick way to recover my password if I would give them my phone number. If I gave them the number, they also would be happy to text or call me with my password if I wanted. Yeah ... sure. How slimy can these guys get - using false pretenses to obtain my phone number for marketing or God knows what other purposes? It's not hard to find a phone number through different online directories, but our voluntarily providing it to Facebook is tantamount to inviting home invasion.
Yeah. That was pretty insidious of them. Even more so that it was positioned as a "SECURITY ALERT!!!" Certainly the more savvy users will see through that BS and not give their personal phone numbers, but the more naïve/trusting users will actually believe that and gladly give Facebook their phone numbers, because, of course Facebook is concerned for their safety and security!!
Why would you post something that was irrelevant?
What... sort of like what you are doing right now. Gee... I didn't know that everything written on this board was relevant to the conversation... I'll have to be more careful.
The comparisons are inevitable. It doesn't mean they're correct.
It's like every time there's an up-and-coming NBA superstar (re: LeBron, Kobe, etc.), there's the inevitable MJ comparisons.
It doesn't mean the comparison is apt. Personally, I doubt there will ever be another MJ, the same way I doubt there will ever be another Steve Jobs.
Taking the NBA analogy further, Kobe 1.0 (the Shaq era, before he mellowed) tried VERY hard to BE Michael Jordan. He emulated he perceived notions about Jordan and, well, failed to be the same level of player. Kobe 2.0 has become more of a team player, and has risen closer than anyone else to Jordan plateau, but he needs another championship in his post-prime career to really deserve any comparisons. Simply having rings isn't enough.
Similarly, Zuckerberg 1.0 seems like he's trying pretty hard to be the next Steve Jobs. I mean, it's either Jobs or Gates, right? Who else's success would you strive to imitate in the tech sector? Of the two, Jobs is a lot "cooler" than Gates. However, Zuckerberg 1.0 is emulating Jobs 1.0, as opposed to the wizened post-return Jobs 2.0. Further, he's only emulating what he perceives Jobs to be like and is focusing on being "successful" (like Kobe 1.0 focused on rings). It remains to be seen whether there will be a Zuckerberg 2.0.
Mark Zuckerberg wishes he had one-tenth of the innovation, charisma and talent that Steve Jobs has in his left pinky.
True...at this point in time, to compare those 2 men is kind of silly...let's see what Zuckerberg has done in his life when he's 60.
True...at this point in time, to compare those 2 men is kind of silly...let's see what Zuckerberg has done in his life when he's 60.
Hmmmm... I think it will take longer than 34 years for Mark to learn anything about charisma...
I saw this coming. If it's so great that Steve behaves the way he does, then why shouldn't everyone behave the same way? After all, shouldn't everyone aspire to greatness? So let's have every manager and CEO start behaving like Steve Jobs and Dr. House.
Because most CEOs are narcissistic ego maniacs and will not emulate someone else.
this guy is a fucking moron, he 'd wished he 'd take after Steve, but...lol...everyone who knows anything, knows enough not to compare this spoilt narrow minded shit with Steve.
Lol, Steve compared to Zuckerberg, it;s like comparing Jesus to some, well, unimportant shit.
Every interview with Steve, shows a visionary, a guy inspiring other people, but Zuckerberg.... is someone almost all people who know what's going on wouldn't hire him to empty a trash bin, every interview of his, shows a colossal moron. And when I say colossal, I mean COLOSSAL. No art, no flair, no brains, no panache, no nothing.
Its a well known fact he's a social misfit. Who the hell are you that you feel entitled for him to sound to your liking? There are many evil people that will come off as intelligent, friendly, witty, and even charming. Are you going to forget that he oppresses people because he's good at interviews?