Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Time to Take a Stand

blog.samaltman.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#881

Post by mattieuga »

MicroBerto wrote: post #852
methehack wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Mr. Altman is largely addressing tech CEOs here and urging them to make public statements. The actions you list are great for you and me, but he's mostly not really talking to us. Supporting quotations from the post (because evidence): "The tech community is powerful. Large tech companies in particular have enormous power and are held in high regard. We need to hear from the CEOs clearly and unequivocally" "A…

What Altman doesn't need to worry about is the blowback and boycotting that occurs when actual CEOs speak out. They know what he refuses to admit: that a non-vocal majority of this country strongly supports the President and will NOT support anyone who publicly smites him. Attacking the President as a normal consumer goods CEO is a losing proposition.

/s/majority/almost half

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#882

Post by CydeWeys »

mjmsmith wrote: post #62

> Almost every member of the GOP I have spoken to knows that these actions are wrong. How about Peter Thiel? What did he say when you spoke to him?

I'd love to hear an answer to this. How is the relationship between Sam Altman and Peter Thiel these days, now that it's becoming clear that Thiel's man is exactly as noxious as the rest of us were saying he was going to be?

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#883

Post by mattieuga »

sparkzilla wrote: post #843
DanBC wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be useful for successful for the tech companies start by 1st or 2nd generation immigrants to speak up. I think the list includes (but I could be wrong): Apple Google Facebook Amazon Oracle IBM Uber Yahoo EMC eBay AT&T Tesla Reddit And, of course, ycombinator.

--->Legal immigrants

Pretty sure Elon wasn't a legal immigrant when he started Zip2.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#884

Post by pavlov »

general_ai wrote: post #819
pavlov wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the guy who, exactly a week ago, said that maybe the USA will have another chance to "keep the oil" from Iraq? Here's the quote from his speech at CIA: "We don’t win anymore. The old expression, “to the victor belong the spoils” -- you remember. I always used to say, keep the oil. I wasn’t a fan of Iraq. I didn’t want to go into Iraq. But I will tell you, when we were in, we got out wrong. And I always said,…

Who would you rather get to "keep the oil"? The country that sunk hundreds of billions into first destroying and then rebuilding Iraq, or some other country?

I'm not really sure what you're asking? The oil is in Iraq and by international law belongs to Iraq, not the USA or some other country.

But even assuming that the USA should "keep the oil" -- how would that work in practice? You can't just pump it all out and make a quick exit. Estimates say that there is 140 billion barrels of the stuff. (That's over 22 cubic kilometres!)

The United States would have to maintain an occupation force to protect the wells and pipelines for years while they're enjoying the "victor's spoils", as Trump puts it.

It's unlikely that any other country would purchase oil produced under such circumstances, so the oil would also have to be shipped to America... And the only shipping route out of Iraq goes right under Iran's nose. You can see how this might escalate quickly.

Trump's idea of keeping Iraq's oil would make for an interesting plot point in an alternate history fiction about World War III.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#885

Post by ebfd »

czep wrote: post #835
ebfd wrote: post #771

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. "Muslim immigrants as a group consume more in societal resources than they contribute in taxes or skilled labor."

> "Muslim immigrants as a group consume more in societal resources than they contribute in taxes or skilled labor." There are several issues with this type of justification. 1) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources. 2) We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources. (This po…

>We do not value human beings based on whether they are net positive or negative contributors to societal resources.

Of course we do. This is the stated, principle reason for immigration in almost all countries that allow it.

The Scandinavian countries have found this not to be the case- statistically the successive generations are actually less prone to educational attainment and more prone to radicalization than their parents.

In my personal experiences, the first generation immigrants are thrilled to be here, while their children lack the same sense of gratitude and tend to resent growing up around white people.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#886

Post by ebfd »

koliber wrote: post #798
ebfd wrote: post #464

I voted for Trump, and am very happy with the ban- I don't see the benefit of bringing in Muslim refugees.

I am curious what your ethnicity is. At what point did you ancestors arrive in the United States, or are you perhaps an immigrant yourself? Did any of your ancestors, at any point, belong to a group of immigrants that was considered by a portion of the US populace as "undesirable", but were let in nonetheless? Would you consider your own presence in the United States as a benefit of such immigration which took place…

I'm ethnically European, so my ancestors shared the same race and values as the demography of the United States at the time. More so, the country at that time did not strive to provide government funded food, shelter, or healthcare, so no financial burden was required to support them.

I don't think it would have benefited, say, Israel or Japan to have extended my ancestors citizenship.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#887

Post by MicroBerto »

mattieuga wrote: post #881
MicroBerto wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What Altman doesn't need to worry about is the blowback and boycotting that occurs when actual CEOs speak out. They know what he refuses to admit: that a non-vocal majority of this country strongly supports the President and will NOT support anyone who publicly smites him. Attacking the President as a normal consumer goods CEO is a losing proposition.

/s/majority/almost half

s/almost half/over half after fraudulent votes removed

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#888

Post by grzm »

MicroBerto wrote: post #887
mattieuga wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

/s/majority/almost half

s/almost half/over half after fraudulent votes removed

Unless you have solid evidence for this, please don't sow seeds of doubt regarding the integrity of the voting process.

Edit: s/election/voting/

The election includes the whole primary system and the electoral college. Here I specifically mean the vote.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#889

Post by MicroBerto »

therealdrag0 wrote: post #874
MicroBerto wrote: post #850

Can't wait to see what Altman writes when the voter fraud is investigated and it's over 3 million fraudulent votes. We already know of 800,000 ( http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/hillary-clinto... ). Detroit was apparent. The rest will come easily. What else is Altman wrong about??

> We already know of 800,000 Well no. The article you posted, which doesn't provide any data or source to any actual study, just says some researchers EXTRAPOLATED polling data, and they themselves say it is NOT plausible for non-citizen votes to account for all of Clinton's margin. So not only is this hardly anything to base a conclusion off of, the conclusion that is arrived at is that Clinton still won the popular…

Focusing on voter fraud is critical to sovereignty, especially with future elections coming up.

A nation needs strict voting laws or it is not a nation. Besides non-citizens voting, there were also multiple votes across county and state lines as well as dead people voting. So I'm not just blaming illegal aliens.

Ultimately, this argument is not going to go anywhere, so how about this: How much money would you like to bet, that IF there is a voter fraud investigation, there were over 2,868,520 fraudulent votes cast across the nation?

Approval ratings are far greater than 36% already BTW.

Re: Time to Take a Stand

#890

Post by MicroBerto »

grzm wrote: post #888
MicroBerto wrote: post #887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

s/almost half/over half after fraudulent votes removed

Unless you have solid evidence for this, please don't sow seeds of doubt regarding the integrity of the voting process. Edit: s/election/voting/ The election includes the whole primary system and the electoral college. Here I specifically mean the vote.

Detroit is just one city (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/re...). How many others are there?

That's plenty for the seeds of doubt, especially given how easy it is to vote in several states.

Post reply on HN