Is that his essay that talks about how lisp knowledge can save future 9/11 attacks from happening?

That’s a favorite of mine. Written right after the attacks. But I wonder why he delisted it while still hosting the essay to make it hard to find but still accessible

You are almost certainly referring to this:

https://www.paulgraham.com/hijack.html

Paul Graham compares the hijacking of an airplane to a buffer overflow attack.

He doesn't claim that tools for writing more secure computer programs could prevent terrorists from hijacking a plane.

He proposes the idea that some similar reasoning can be applied to preventing hijackings. It's not enough to monitor who gets on the airplane carrying what, but to separate the cockpit space from the passenger space.

I know, that’s what I said his essay was about: Lisp knowledge would have prevented 9/11 and can prevent future hijacking attacks. Thanks for providing additional details - it's a treat to re-read his thoughts on 9/11

Likewise, knowledge of effective hijacking prevention techniques could be relevant in defensive program and system organization.

I don't think his point is very good because array overruns in a heap can be exploitable. Lisps (and other kinds of run-times) don't necessarily separate code from data in their heaps.

I agree the point is trash!

Overtly mean doesn’t work very well, but that’s the stupid form of mean. Covertly Machiavellian seems to work, as does the kind of initially ingratiating gradually controlling personality of a cult leader.

The best kind of mean for todays environment seems to be Machiavellian coated in a superficial gloss of magnanimity via stuff like effective altruism, longtermism, or wokewashing.

This is an odd framing. Causing harm doesn't require malice, in fact most businesses larger than Dunbar's number in employees aren't really driven by affect or emotion at all, but by people all weakly following incentives. The externalities of this behavior is where people get harmed, without ever requiring the intent to do so from anyone within the business.

My thesis is that malicious behavior by executives is in some large percentage of cases not intentional but uncontrolled profit-seeking behavior by the ant-heap that is their organization.

Of course it's not intentional - mostly. But if harm occurs, there should still be legal and personal liability for it.

Otherwise you have the "Just following orders" excuse.

This isn't an academic issue. Corporate harms are pervasive, very real, and hugely destructive to the economy and to the well-being of (at least) hundreds of millions.

Thank you very much.

> Jessica and I have always worked hard to teach our kids not to be mean.

I teach my son to be friendly.