I suspect "Dark Talent" would have been better labeled as "The Silent Talent", waiting to be heard but still working quietly to the ears that will not hear.
Much like "The Silent Majority", it takes a conduit to understand them before they are listened to by the minority in power.
It probably came from the industry term "dark fiber" where there's fiber optic cable that is unused that was put in place as extra during the late 90s and early 2000s. Is sitting dormant until someone leases it from a network service provider. So dark doesn't have anything to do with anything other than unused potential in this scenario.
So "dark talent" in your view is not a good thing. I didn't see it that way at first, I was just curious about it. If Srinivasan is a technocrat working toward a global (nasty) agenda, well I guess that's bad. But I also thought it could be good because it implies a weakness in the present march toward absolute control with diminishing freedom. Corrupt governments and corporations want that kind of control, akin to slavery, with no rights, no recourse. They have all the money, an entrenched system, put in place to keep the power in their hands.
But if "dark talent" escapes their notice, then their control slips. Money flows elsewhere, away from them. Dark talent evades their technocratic control grid, undermining the status quo.
I guess it comes down to what the "dark talent" is mobilized for, what it is used for, and whether it's going to disrupt something trying to enslave us or something trying to empower us.
Balaji is simply another Elon Musk or Peter Thiel
https://substack.com/@michaelginsburg/note/c-109507108
https://substack.com/@michaelginsburg/note/c-110127250
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT3mwJOdSHQ
I suspect "Dark Talent" would have been better labeled as "The Silent Talent", waiting to be heard but still working quietly to the ears that will not hear.
Much like "The Silent Majority", it takes a conduit to understand them before they are listened to by the minority in power.
> The people Srinivasan is labeling as dark talent were never dark — they might have just been outside his network’s field of vision.
We're all "dark talent" to someone.
It probably came from the industry term "dark fiber" where there's fiber optic cable that is unused that was put in place as extra during the late 90s and early 2000s. Is sitting dormant until someone leases it from a network service provider. So dark doesn't have anything to do with anything other than unused potential in this scenario.
So "dark talent" in your view is not a good thing. I didn't see it that way at first, I was just curious about it. If Srinivasan is a technocrat working toward a global (nasty) agenda, well I guess that's bad. But I also thought it could be good because it implies a weakness in the present march toward absolute control with diminishing freedom. Corrupt governments and corporations want that kind of control, akin to slavery, with no rights, no recourse. They have all the money, an entrenched system, put in place to keep the power in their hands.
But if "dark talent" escapes their notice, then their control slips. Money flows elsewhere, away from them. Dark talent evades their technocratic control grid, undermining the status quo.
I guess it comes down to what the "dark talent" is mobilized for, what it is used for, and whether it's going to disrupt something trying to enslave us or something trying to empower us.