Live data from Hacker News

Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

sfstandard.com

341–350 of 433 posts

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#341
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.

> 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?

The honest truth? They're supposed to do nothing and take their licks with a smile. If that's not good enough for them, they are allowed to occupy themselves with ineffectual political activities, preferably on issues that are exhausting and do not disturb the power of the elite (e.g. abortion, transgenderism, etc.).

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- Callous disregard of lost jobs, disinformation, mental health issues / deaths, IP theft, environmental cost, skill atrophy - Barely gave 1% of compute (on oldest chips) to safety team after promise of 20% - Worked behind the scenes to try to land federal deal that gives mil no guardrails control and ability for mass surveillance - Lied about China AI 'Marshall Plan' to get federal funding - Tried to get MBS money e…

[flagged]

I'm just listing negatives that parent missed, don't put words in my mouth

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#343
post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked on electoral and initiative campaigns, and traveled thousands of miles to knock on doors. I’ve donated money. I’ve called my congresspeople. I’ve gone to and spoken at public meetings. I’ve protested, been tear gassed, beaten, and thrown in jail. I’ve been doing all of this continuously for about 20 years. I can tell you, from extensive experience going through the official channels, that the formal mec…

If you don’t have large support for your ideas then it shouldn’t be a surprise it’s hard. But that’s the intent of the system? Represent what most people want.

Yeah, America as a whole voted for Trump, and later atleast reading online I am seeing people be like: "I didn't know he was this bad" when reading his policies, he was exactly this bad :-/

People don't vote for their own gains but rather the gains of the few and to be honest, one can argue that within America this is a both-party problem and sometimes you are just picking for the less wrong politician and then you have these biases which blind them.

if this is the case, I have seen American people online say that "But, people know that the American govt and american people are different"

It is almost as if people are saying whatever is convenient at the time. This can only be one or the other.

If the average American's intent is of the system which is current administration, then forget about the trust within the system. I find your position with a bit of irony.

The system isn't working and that's a fact. You can say that people are to be blamed for that, sure, but then the people will be blamed entirely.

To be honest, The americans I sometimes talk online to don't share this ideal of the govt. and are fighting against it in some way or another but they are tired and hopeless, for the most part. I really take a deeper offense to your statement as that makes all the problems persist longer and thus to many people who have nothing to lose, violence feels like the only option which might be what GP might be referring to.

Either America needs to fix itself or violence will keep on happening. To be honest, I am not that much hopeful that America can fix itself though in the sense that the corporate influence is so immense with the two party system and the trust is still lost in some ways in America and times in future are gonna be even more harder yet America is completely polarized. These problems are also existing in other countries to be honest but America is at another magnitude and at these levels of inequality, violence to many people feel like the only way to share their voice which has been suppressed by the system for far too long. From my time reading history, this is a very repeating phenomenon and in a sense, history is messy but when people got really pissed at the system failing, mass scale revolt and violence was always picked as the last resort and we are in those times now.

I feel like we can either condemn or do anything as a society but if people (and humans just like you and me actually) get so frustrated within the system that violence seems like an good choice, then that is upon the fault of the system and I feel like the condemnation of act just does nothing in the long grand scheme of things.

TLDR: People should really act together to solve these things peacefully but its very far from happening in reality and reality is messy and always has been in some regards, we just read it from the line of statistics and history.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#344
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet the difference remains, as does its decisiveness.

Could you explain?

The left right spectrum refers to representation in legislatures, a physical seating chart if you will, even in the US Electoral College. There is a reason to keep some people more physically separated, learned over time by civil institutions. These organizations, that exist in a left-right spectrum context, are the rulers, decisively in republics. Independently and regardless of where the electors or anyone else are. There is always a left-right spectrum even if not party-based.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong. I don't see myself as having called anyone names; rather, I said that the point was so banal that the only conversation you're likely to see is from people who get dopamine hits from taking the edgy other side of the argument.

>Everybody who believes civil violence is a productive solution to any problems we have in 2026 is wrong. Hilarious joke, Mr. Fukuyama. You have masked goons running around, detaining and even killing people without probable cause. If the results of the 2026 midterms are not to the liking of the current POTUS, it isn't unthinkable that he would try to overturn them, even by force. Would you be hand-wringing on HN abo…

> Hilarious joke, Mr. Fukuyama. You have masked goons running around, detaining and even killing people without probable cause. If the results of the 2026 midterms are not to the liking of the current POTUS, it isn't unthinkable that he would try to overturn them, even by force. Would you be hand-wringing on HN about how violence is always bad, then?

Also the official opposition is actually not really interested in representing many discontented people. It sticks to loser issues at are alienating to many except activist base (https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/16/opinion/democrats-senate-...), and seems totally fine with not being competitive in many elections. And it continues to be that way in the dire political environment you describe.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#346

I am seeing information about the attacker that show he was being influenced by Rationalist thinkers - he posted about “If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies” by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares. This information of course might be false, so take the words below with a grain of salt. I might be completely wrong. When an influential group in the Valley that has ties to many tech companies spends years speading rhetoric…

if you just believe the title of that book, you can justify any action against the makers of AI. plot of so many sci-fi to send someone back in time to kill the creator of ai

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because people might have missed it last thread, here's dang's response to the discourse: > I don't think I've ever seen a thread this bad on Hacker News. The number of commenters justifying violence, or saying they "don't condone violence" and then doing exactly that, is sickening and makes me want to find something else to do with my life—something as far away from this as I can get. I feel ashamed of this communit…

I recently saw a lecture by neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky [1] which discussed the complexities of human violence. We both condone and don't condone violence all the time, depending on social context. And furthers, our ways of expressing violence are varied (even down to tiny things like the silent treatment). We (along with other animals) have always used aggression to enforce social order and obtain social benefit.…

> Perhaps something to think about in a scenario like this. Personally I think it's interesting that some people are so quick to condone aggressive attacks on powerful people, yet have no comment on those powerful people committing lower levels of violence against the masses. It's all social context.

Can I just say that out of all of this discourse happening, this might be the most insightful yet succint position to explain my stance on all of this especially the "its all social context." line.

I feel like many of us here might share an answer publicly but I have always believed that if I am in the shoes of someone else, I might act the way they do so in a sense I understand the human part of it. A human did the violence and why. I understand that. Now we can call this violence inhuman, sure, but this action is still done by human and for many reasons. And I also understand why people condemn these actions, we wish to live in a clean and structural world and then we see the messiness of the world.

I just feel like just condemning an action would do nothing unless we change the ground conditions but that isn't in the hands of even many of us Hackernews users and this is basically a class aspect to it.

I personally feel like there are some similarities to this incident to the Trolley problem actually. Vsauce did a video about it worth watching[0]

Thank you for writing this comment.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiA

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#348
post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is called cherry picking. The comment refers to an article specifically discussing only one aspect of a major historical event. The French revolution is considered one of the most important events in the history of Europe, because of the great impact it had on the (among others) politics, economy and the quality of life of common people. Downplaying its importance by trying to water its impact down to "but rich…

I’m not underplaying its signaling value. Just that nobody that signaled was better off for it. Choosing a revolution-style coup is condemning your and your loved ones’ lives to horribleness. If that’s worth it, roll the dice. But don’t think the elites will suffer for it.

As I said, it seems like you simply have a very poor understanding of the source material.

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#349
post #265
post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. A lot of commenters who have probably had privileged lives and never faced a situation where violence was, in fact, the answer.

And they live in a country where the industry of violence is the largest slice of government budget.

Defense is 13% of the US budget https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

Re: Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack

#350
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.

In Sam Altman's case that is true. He is just one frontman for and beneficiary of a giant technological revolution that is almost inevitably happening whether anyone wants it to or not, since it is pushed forward by pure Darwinian logic: all key world actors feel compelled to develop AI, since they know that if they don't they will be outcompeted by others who do develop AI. Altman's death would change nothing about…

>Altman's death would change nothing about that fundamental calculus. You'd have to kill probably tens of thousands of people to really put a dent in AI development

Your analysis seems to assume that people will remain more afraid of being "outcompeted" than of being murdered, even after a campaign of terrorism that would make 9/11 look minor.

>it often also creates new [problems], often surprising ones

Let's reframe this to remove the negative bias: murder has the obvious direct first-order effect of removing the target from existence, but also a host of non-obvious higher-order effects resulting from people's response to that violence. These can be counterproductive to the goals of the murderer, but they can also work in favor of it. That is why "terrorism" is a real thing - the higher-order effects are essentially a force multiplier, and if you have nothing to lose then the calculus of causing a major disruption begins to look favorable; any disruption, because regression to the mean is good if you're at the shitty end of the bell curve.

Post reply on HN