25
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Apr 2026
25 points (100.0% liked)
TechTakes
2539 readers
86 users here now
Big brain tech dude got yet another clueless take over at HackerNews etc? Here's the place to vent. Orange site, VC foolishness, all welcome.
This is not debate club. Unless it’s amusing debate.
For actually-good tech, you want our NotAwfulTech community
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Dan Gackle threatens to quit HN over their reluctance to condemn an act of violence towards Sam Altman:
Gackle's ashamed of people not wanting to protect Altman. Curiously, he doesn't seem ashamed of openly allowing people with nicknames ending in "88" to post antisemitism, nor of allowing multiple crusty conservatives like John Nagle and Walter Bright to post endorsements of violence against the homeless and queer, nor of allowing posters like
rayinerto port entirely foreign flavors of racism like the Indian caste system into their melting pot of bigotry. This subthread takes him to task for it:The rest of that subthread involves Dan demonstrating that he is, in fact, terminally detached from reality. Anyway, I fully endorse Gackle fucking off and buying a farm. While he's at it, he should consider following the advice of this reply:
Every day, HN users flag into oblivion anything mildly critical of the technological dystopia these tech-bros are trying to manifest. "Politics!" they cry. But Sam Altman comes along with an OpenAI marketing piece dressed up as a condemnation of political violence, and suddenly "politics" are a perfectly acceptable topic. dang has long made it clear whose side he's on.
Oh, and I hope everyone noted how quickly Sam used this incident as an excuse to place blame on the reporters who published the New Yorker piece that was mildly critical of him:
That's a hilarious reaction.
Anyway there's zip about this incident on LW, which is telling.
edit here's a very oblique reference https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/igEogGD9TAgAeAM7u/jimrandomh-s-shortform?commentId=zdMRHRqWDcjswhA3i
don't miss the anarcho-libertarian in the comments
Lesswrong is too centrist-brained to ever even hint at legitimizing (non-state-sanctioned) destruction of property as a means of protest or political action. But according to the orthodox lesswrong lore, Sam Altman's actions are literally an existential threat to all humanity, so they can't defend him either. So they are left with silence.
I actually kind of agree with the anarchy-libertarian's response? It is massively down voted.
Bingo. Dear leader Yudkowsky can ask to bomb the data centers, and as long as this action goes through the US political process, that violence is legitimate, regardless of how ill-behaved the US is or it's political processes degraded from actually functioning as a democracy.
That explains why Yud is using twitter so much nowadays. I mean they did ban him right? right?
Someone just made a top post condemning the Molotov but defending and normalizing Eliezer: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Sih2sFHEgusDEuxtZ/you-can-t-trust-violence
Ah suddenly when it reaches the class he feels he should be a part of (or is a part of, I don't know how much money he makes) violence is suddenly a problem.
...