Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

sfstandard.com

41–50 of 433 posts

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#41
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> the sentiment for many is that 'we don't care we have nothing to lose anyway' Everyone says this before they learn what they didn’t value. Peace, for example. > Its easy for you to say, all perched up as a VC It’s easy to say for anyone who has read the history of political violence. When that comes on the table, universally [1], the people with power also have the power to raise armies. The people who stand to ben…

[flagged]

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#42
post #7

In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.

This is obviously true, but you're just inviting the rebuttals. Arguments that civil violence is unproductive are boring and obvious. Normal people have been acculturated to understand the point already. The only way to have an "interesting" conversation about this is to take the other side.

All of those arguments will be vile, as they have to be given the context.

I'm not criticizing you, and I guess I'm glad someone wrote this comment quickly. You're right. But I would caution people against reading too much into the countervailing sentiment here. It's not trolling, but it is something adjacent to it.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's hard to sympathize with someone like Altman The thing about rights is you believe in them universally or you don’t believe in them at all. If we have a right to life, sympathy isn’t relevant. Awful people can be awful, but if we start compromising their rights then we deface all of our freedoms and security.

I consider rights a functional abstraction. That is to say, they're useful, we should abide them as a tenet of a civilized society, but we also made them up. And importantly we all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are. So I disagree with your axiom that you have to believe in them 100% or 0…

> all recognize that they're conditional - if you cross certain lines of conduct you lose them - and there's actually a lot of debate to be had about where those lines are

One hundred percent of those debates end at process, not unilateral action. If it can be unilaterally nullified, it is no longer a right.

> you have to believe in them 100% or 0%

Not degree but range. We don’t have a right to infinite life or medicine. But everyone has to have the same level of right for it to be a right. Otherwise I can disagree with your right to a right and nullify it on my own terms.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#45
post #5

I have a few predictions for this year: 1. Violent attacks against AI CEOs, researchers, and engineers is going to begin. This is due to widespread negative press that AI receives and as well as a pervasive feeling of economic uncertainty and doom in the population. Some of this being caused by the current administration's leadership, but much of it attributed to AI taking jobs and destroying opportunity. 2. Violent…

[deleted]

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#46
post #29
post #7

In case someone reading this is thinking similar thoughts: there's no version of reality where doing this will solve any problem. Don't.

While I 100% do not support violence against Sam Altman, or anyone else for that matter, what are people without billions of dollars and without the ear of the president supposed to do to affect change in this modern, post-capitalist hellscape? And I am genuinely interested in ideas that people think will work, not just trying to be combative.

I read this comment as saying that you (100-k)% do not support violence against Sam Altman, for some positive real number k.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#47
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Violence solves problems every day. Worse off is relative. I think you mean to qualify your statement.

Police employ violence all the time and I think we who are okay/well off all agree that they solve our problems every day. What us cushy engineers haven't realized yet is that the gradient for who are well off are sliding more and more towards one end. Sooner or later engineers will be on the wrong side of that gradient.

Indeed. Violence can be and is met with violence, and refusing to discern against them is a logical failure that needs correcting. Inevitably it comes down to process, and being a one-party state in control, the Democrats control the violence. Arguably on both sides.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#48
post #34
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Is the US still a democracy, or already an oligarchy?

The more we treat it like a democracy, the more democratic it is. The more we treat it like an oligarchy, the less democratic it is.

Treating a rigged game as fair doesn't make it fair, it just makes you easier to beat.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#49
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not really about that though is it? The people who are doing this stuff are unhinged but why? Perhaps they do not trust law and order. Perhaps they feel helpless and have been led to believe its over for the labour class due to the overhyped marketing and so on. A serious frank conversation needs to be had and the hyping needs to stop.

They’re some combination of deranged, depressed and looking for a thrill. In most countries they fail to stab someone. Here they have guns.

Before passing judgment consider that while you may have the privilege of posting from a country that's never had to fight for relief from tyranny, that's not necessarily the case for others.
Post reply on HN