451–460 of 798 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The short answer is a lot of potentially useful decentralized protocols completely buckle under the weight of Sybil attacks, so if Sybil attacks were impossible, there is a whole lot more that could be built
So how do retinal scans protect against Sybil attacks exactly?
It came as a surprise for me to learn that PG fired Sam. It's the first time that I read this actually, and if that's true, I find it kind of mysterious that it remained a secret for so long. Or maybe I missed the news somehow but I could not find any other mention of that event on Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have hung out on HN for over 14 years and took a personal interest in "How in the heck did a pretty young woman co-found a company with three men, date one of them and not have this turn into a debacle and scandal in the headlines???" It took quite a few years for the details behind the founding of YC to come out: 1. Jessica Livingston did not co-found a company with three random men. 2. She and Paul Graham were da…
That is quite a wild conclusion to jump to. What evidence or clues lead you to that.
YC had 4 founders. Jessica and I decided one night to start it, and the next day we recruited my friends Robert Morris and Trevor Blackwell. Jessica and I ran YC day to day, and Robert and Trevor read applications and did interviews with us.
Jessica and I were already dating when we started YC. At first we tried to act "professional" about this, meaning we tried to conceal it.
http://www.paulgraham.com/jessica.html
Note: That's from November 2015. I originally joined in July 2009 and the company dates to something like 2007.
It came as a surprise for me to learn that PG fired Sam. It's the first time that I read this actually, and if that's true, I find it kind of mysterious that it remained a secret for so long. Or maybe I missed the news somehow but I could not find any other mention of that event on Google.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paul's tweet is an objective statement, it does not say anything about character or values and is not explicitly supportive.
…you think calling someone “the best in the world” is a) purely factual b) not supportive Uh, what on earth would count as explicitly supportive language?
In other words, he's basically saying Sam is the best in the world at being a ruthless mofo in these situations and obliterating those who oppose him. "Admiring language", perhaps, but I wouldn't really call that "supportive language".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This the main reason I don't trust people who are in the business of "selling". On one hand, it's nice being around those kinds of people. On the other hand, it's hard to take any of the nice things they say seriously. Most of them say nice things to be likeable, not because they actually mean or will do what they say. I've learned to pay close attention to what salesmen do, rather than what is said. The actual truth…
"I've learned to pay close attention to what salesmen do, rather than what is said" I've learned to apply this to every human being. Talk is cheap.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paul's tweet is an objective statement, it does not say anything about character or values and is not explicitly supportive.
…you think calling someone “the best in the world” is a) purely factual b) not supportive Uh, what on earth would count as explicitly supportive language?
More to the point, some people are natural leaders, they can process many stressful complex situations in parallel without breaking a sweat. I know I can't, not long term, all the kudos to them.
At least some of them are also amoral a-holes, highly functioning sociopaths (these get more common the more power and money floats around till they become the norm).
It's oh so weird the article does not mention any of these though... - https://twitter.com/phuckfilosophy/status/163570439893983232... (SA's sister - also have a look at her recent posts) - Also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/QDczBduZorG4dxZiW/sam-altman... (utterly distressing) - https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1727096607752282485 (check the comment with snapshots of the letter - "strangely" that Gist was dele…
Also he does seem to have "crazy eyes" [1].... Yeah it's not entirely scientific but a lot of manipulative exec types have them. Elizabeth Holmes comes to mind... [1] https://www.insider.com/you-can-spot-psychopaths-by-looking-...
> According to Chinese/Japanese medical [...] when the upper sclera is visible it is said to be an indication of mental imbalance in people such as psychotics, murderers, and anyone rageful. In either condition, it is believed that these people attract accidents and violence.
It might not be scientific but people with this look certainly do freak me out. (FWIW, I haven't seen any images of Sam with these eyes.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Applewhite#/media/Fil...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s a really good example of not being explicitly supportive. It’s an objective statement. If I said “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” it may implicitly feel like I’m rooting for him. But I’m just stating a fact. What would count? “I think Roy Sullivan is the man to be struck an eighth time. He’s the best at it. I hope he succeeds.”
Is it though? When the fact is subjective to begin with? I would even say “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” is not a fact at all but an opinion. And by giving an opinion you are passing judgement. How can you claim saying something such as "Washington was the best president" is in some way a fact? Can you find it in reference books? Is it defined from the laws of nature? Does anyone…
