Whilst that may be true, I've not read about a lot of tragic deaths where everyone who knew the person thought they were a prick.

The point being raised is "Do we really think his theories had unusual insight/value or is his work being viewed through the lens of his death being tragic?". It seems like an entirely valid question to ask.

In terms of "the joker being a rational actor who achieved his goals". Well personally I think he's misinterpreted the film/characters, but I know i'm not an expert on such things so the most I can say is that I'll take his view with a pretty chunky pinch of salt.

You're rewriting history. Read up a bit about Reddit early days etc

He's raised up to demi-god status because he checks some boxes in the same way Turing does, and as with Turing, people believe the "history" they want to believe to fit their own views. Personally, I find it distasteful to use people like this, and it belittles everyone elses lives and contributions.

The thing I like most about Aaron's writing is that he was relentlessly introspective. But this definitely rubbed some people the wrong way. There were many who dismissed his articles as navel-gazing when they were originally posted.

That is a demonstrably false statement, as you admit. No one is loved by everyone. No one is hated by everyone. No one is "evil", and no one is a "saint".

This ridiculous habit some people have of putting people in two boxes (good, bad) is just so stupid. People do good things, and do bad things. Everyone does some amount of good, and some amount of bad. People aren't good or evil.

But I also take issue with that false placement of him, that is again expressed in that OP title: "Aaron Swartz’s Theory on How to Save the World". That is not serious and is also in a way of disrespecting him.

It is remotly similar when Obama got its Nobel Price. I think it was done with good intentions, but was completely misplaced.

Uncharitably throwing misplaced attributed at a deceased person, because it goes well with the intention of selling a book is not human, but kind of perverse.

He may have been a great guy. He may have been nice and caring. But he is not a great role model, no matter how much people wish he could have been.

He didn't fit in that mold, as many didn't here. His mind didn't fit in the rule following process at all, which honestly IS what showed his great promise. He was capable of more and brave enough to try.

While I don't like post humous articles that use someone else to push your ideas, someone who can't speak for themselves anymore, this comment just made me sad.

[1] Same high school, a few years older. [2] https://newrepublic.com/article/127317/school

He may have many flaws, but that's the one thing you can't say about him. Watch this part of Internet's Own Boy: https://youtu.be/aePSFMLzBBM?t=12m50s

To narrate that part of the video, as a school kid he goes to Washington to listen to Lawrence Lessig challenging the Copyright Laws in the Supreme Court. The video shows him saying that he's doing this because it's such an important case. How many school kids are interested in that kind of thing? And among other things, he participated (at a very young age) in the RSS specification, and was part of the team which wrote Reddit (PG calls him co-founder).

Many of us (especially here on HN) were aware of his accomplishments way before he took his own life. He's not someone who became a hero after or due to his tragic death.

I for one judge people on their accomplishments, not whether he finished school or not.

BTW, have you noticed that people saying that do not get downvoted as much? Such a complain works well, in spite of HN's official policy against it. People keep saying it because it works ;-)

No? My impression is that people saying it get down-voted more.

Indeed I've occasionally down-voted people just for saying it, because it usually reads to me like "I know HN most readers are too stupid to understand my opinions, but..."