Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio • Hacker News Board

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#31

Post by uname_pword » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:46 AM UTC

gegegege wrote: post #27

uname_pword wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Within the spirit of the experiment? Jonathan himself says no: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/08/12/jonathans.card.ha... I don't see this as self-promotional. Jonathan's open letter now ranks on the first google results page for "Sam Odio". I think this will have a hidden effect on Sam's career. Any hiring manager or venture capitalist worth his salt will learn about what Sam did, and make a value judgement on…

Not in the spirit no, but still part of the experiment. I honestly don't think Sam is going to get much heat over this from people who matter in his life. Most smart people will look at it from the experiment POV and not the emotionally charged theft and wire-fraud angles.

> I honestly don't think Sam is going to get much heat over this from people who matter in his life

I agree with you there. Although as an outsider looking in to Sam's life with only this one saga to judge him by, I'd call him a morally bankrupt snake (emotionally charged - yes, but my truthful gut reaction).

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#32

Post by sondh » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:48 AM UTC

The Jonathan Card experiment was a good one to watch but then this Sam misusage of Jonathan Card experiment turned out to be even better. This is no personal but at least I can see a few things here:

- Sometimes we should try stupid things (like trying to get money from a Starbucks card), eventually we will success! Probably this is the same idea with the trend these days: fail often, fail fast, fail cheap (kind of). - Don't be greedy. This one is obvious. If you happen to find an exploit of a system, don't act like a jerk! Tell the admin/webmaster/etc. so he can fix it without further damage. - Anything else HN?

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#33

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:49 AM UTC

Udo wrote: post #10

Sam_Odio wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.

I think the olive branch comment is consistent because it conveys an absolute lack of insight into the way your actions are perceived by other people. Sam, the things you wrote on your blog regarding the whole incident left me speechless at first. It wasn't just because of what you did, it was the tone of superiority and confidence you exhibited throughout that made me really angry - angry enough to attack you very h…

[deleted]

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#34

Post by urbanjunkie » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:51 AM UTC

Giving to charity should be a personal decision, not something used to raise one's own profile or to prove a point.

His email to Jonathan, and his subsequently passive aggressive "olive branch" reply also demonstrate how he's totally failed to get that this is a community reaction, he's abused a commons, for which he is rightly getting castigated.

With any luck, he'll grow up, realise that his narrow world-view isn't inherently superior other people's. If he really wants to show he cares, he should donate his own time, and his own money to worthwhile causes.

Sam - go spend a month somewhere like Uganda, there is a huge amount to do - I can even hook you up with a couple of charity contacts if you want.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#35

Post by mebesilly » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:51 AM UTC

wisty wrote: post #19

Sam_Odio wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.

Sam, just man up and apologize. Some people think you are a monster. Some people think you might be doing the right think, kinda. Guess which ones are louder? It's not just that you took the money. You also insulted everyone for being so shallow, when they were trying to be nice. Trying to take the moral high ground is never a good idea, when people think you are wrong. And some people will think you are wrong. Just…

"Some people think you are a monster."

Add me to that list.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#36

Post by danielrhodes » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:51 AM UTC

Udo wrote: post #10

Sam_Odio wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.

I think the olive branch comment is consistent because it conveys an absolute lack of insight into the way your actions are perceived by other people. Sam, the things you wrote on your blog regarding the whole incident left me speechless at first. It wasn't just because of what you did, it was the tone of superiority and confidence you exhibited throughout that made me really angry - angry enough to attack you very h…

I'm not seeing why this is all so bad. The whole thing was an experiment to see what would happen and Sam demonstrated one scenario. Self-interest at the cost of societal good is an ever present factor in human behavior and a community cookie jar in the form of a Starbucks card is not going to change that. Jonathan's cold response, given that he obviously thought differently, should be no more suprising than something like this happening in the first place.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#37

Post by [deleted] » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:52 AM UTC

Udo wrote: post #10

Sam_Odio wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, I guess a lot can get lost in translation. :( That "olive branch" comment wasn't intended to be negative. I was saddened by his reply. To address your point: I am not looking for a personal confrontation...just wanting to reach out and make sure he's OK.

I think the olive branch comment is consistent because it conveys an absolute lack of insight into the way your actions are perceived by other people. Sam, the things you wrote on your blog regarding the whole incident left me speechless at first. It wasn't just because of what you did, it was the tone of superiority and confidence you exhibited throughout that made me really angry - angry enough to attack you very h…

[deleted]

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#38

Post by marcamillion » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:53 AM UTC

VladRussian wrote: post #16

johnfn wrote: post #9

I'm finding myself in a significant minority here, which is always an interesting time to stand back and reflect. I hope this post doesn't come off as a troll; I am genuinely curious where my beliefs diverge from the majority. I cannot understand why Sam's charity raising has raised such an outrage. Here is why. First, what he did was within the bounds of the experiment. Johnathan provided the Starbucks card to be us…

>Sam's charity giving your own money away is charity, redirecting somebody else's money isn't a charity, it is management at best theft at worst

So all the charities setup that either a) give away money by a rich donor - e.g. Carnegie, etc. or b) request donations (e.g. for a major crisis) and allocate it how they see it fit, would be considered what?

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#39

Post by VladRussian » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 9:56 AM UTC

marcamillion wrote: post #38

VladRussian wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sam's charity giving your own money away is charity, redirecting somebody else's money isn't a charity, it is management at best theft at worst

So all the charities setup that either a) give away money by a rich donor - e.g. Carnegie, etc. or b) request donations (e.g. for a major crisis) and allocate it how they see it fit, would be considered what?

you're misreading it - there is act of charity and there is charity organization.

Re: Jonathan Stark responds to Sam Odio

#40

Post by dbuizert » Sun, Aug 14, 2011, 10:02 AM UTC

michaelschade wrote: post #18

dbuizert wrote: post #15

I had a quick interaction with Lon on TC about the situation. To me is sounds like "Sam" is doing this for personal gain. It feels like promoting, marketing. Because in all the posts about this, referrals are thrown to his business and his brothers. Which to me is wrong in the first place, as it was about the card not their damn business. Secondly, it was theft wasn't it? The card wasn't his, it was a good that was l…

> Second place he used script to monitor the card and its movements. Which is illegal unless he had a wiretap approved. Not stating my position on this entire debate with this comment; but, to be fair, he was simply monitoring an API that Jonathan himself provided to see the balance, so there was no wiretapping or illegal card accessing to determine balance going on.

Okay fair enough then. Thanks for clarifying :-)