611–620 of 798 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is laughably naive or frustratingly bad faith to think abusive cops are similar to incompatible business partners.
Not to me, when those "business partners" are in charge of some agencies like YC that do influence the society we live in.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There is nothing that is a red flag for me in the above story. Elizabeth? Is that you?
If Elizabeth Holmes had been able to pull off some successful product that made a lot of money, no doubt all the "fake it 'til you make it" she did at the beginning (showing demos that didn't work, sending tests to outside labs and saying they were run on their equipment) would have been forgiven no doubt. Just another nostalgic Silicon Valley "hustler" story.
It was an affinity fraud on non-SV rich people founded on acting like a tech company.
From Paul Graham's Twitter, three days ago: "No one in the world is better than Sam at dealing with this kind of situation." Jessica Livingston retweet: "The reason I was a founding donor to OpenAI in 2015 was not because I was interested in AI, but because I believed in Sam. So I hope the board can get its act together and bring Sam and Greg back." Also from a sibling comment: https://twitter.com/search?q=from:paulg…
I didn't see anything in the article that there was bad blood, just that Paul fired Sam. Those are not the same thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…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?
Did you miss the context of the image in that tweet? It's the famous "I have a particular set of skills..." speech from Taken: https://youtu.be/jZOywn1qArI 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.
their long term project doesn't save or store retina patterns in any way. they store of a hash of it that is mathematically impossible to reverse. it's clear you wildly misunderstand how this works, i would encourage you to go learn more. i'd also welcome you to explain how the crypto side of it is bad in comparison to other uses of blockchains
Why are you lying to protect sama’s reputation? Worldcoin stores the biometric data for opt-in users. They say it themselves. It’s stored “encrypted” which means the original data is retrievable, and kept in Worldcoin’s custody. All Worldcoin claims is that it has safeguards against retrieving the data it does collect and store, like say Equifax or 23andme claim about your PII.
That does not follow. It's true if you're using technical terms correctly, but I've absolutely seen companies use encrypted to mean hashed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a matter of good policy they wouldn't publicly denounce anyone that was associated with YC.
simplest explanation is most likely the one nearest the truth
Earlier quoted context omitted.
…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?
I wouldn't shake my hand with some of the best in the world. Why so damning? Heck we didn't even define in what they are best in, could be contract killing or lying for example (not applying to the actual topic and person, just generic statements). 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,…
> Graham did not respond to a request for comment. Not said: "...but has consistently spoken in support of Sam Altman." This article is incredibly disingenuous. Almost to the level that I'd cancel my Washington Post subscription over if I hadn't already for similarly bad journalism.
WaPo has been an atrocious wreck lately and I’d be surprised at someone still subscribing to it while actually reading their content in anger. Hastily drumming up some palace intrigue puff piece like this has been their business model for years and I don’t see the appeal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a matter of good policy they wouldn't publicly denounce anyone that was associated with YC.
simplest explanation is most likely the one nearest the truth