If my favourite sports team was in the championship (and the underdog), I could easily make the claim "team $NOT_MY_TEAM is the best in the world" and still hope that my team beats them.

Not saying pg is doing this, of course.

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".

This is the most important comment in this whole thread.

One can quickly see that an individual ideal for a ruthless frontier with competing behemoths might be less perfect for a slightly more encouraging and nurturing incubator.

And also how a board of academics + Adam + Ilya of a nonprofit ostensibly optimizing for "humanity" might not consider someone like that the best fit for representing the nonprofit, especially if he was gaslighting them and treating them like NPCs.

> 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

Exactly, it's not all that subtle, so I find it hard to even come up with an alternative interpretation.

But in that movie Liam Neeson is the good guy, a hero fighting for justice. The imagery is pretty unambiguous.

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 even believe my quote?

He held the world record, so I’m comfortable saying he was the best at it. If that’s not sufficient and we’re interested in being a semantic pedantic, that’s not a discussion that interests me.

Still an opinion, sorry.

To clarify some, "best" in “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” is subjective.

Who cares that he got hit three times? Okay, he was hit the most times. That is a fact. I saw a video of a guy getting hit and he did it with grace and elegance - I think hes the best at getting hit. How is "something is best" ever a fact?

So the statement is that Sam Altman is the best person in the world at getting fired?

Not sure. But it’s different from saying they support Altman’s endeavour in being the best at it.

Any person that gets to this position must be good at some things.

Acknowledging it does not mean supporting the person. It is just a factual statement.

Even Adolf Hitler was good at certain things like manipulating masses of people. Saying this absolutely does not mean I support Hitler. It is just a factual statement.

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, 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).

There is speculation PG is suggesting Sam is the best at gaining and consolidating power. Considering his swift rise that may be accurate.

Being the best in the world to deal with a situation is a neutral statement. Putin is the best in the world to deal with the situation he’s in right now, if you need a negative angle on this.

> Putin is the best in the world to deal with the situation he’s in right now, if you need a negative angle on this.

Probably not true? It seems like Russia could use another Yeltsin (or Gorbachev) more than Putin for its current situation.

I don’t think most Russians would agree that either of the other gentlemen would be preferable. The 80s and 90s were not a time of great happiness, prosperity, calm, and order.

And just like sama may not be the best to run OpenAI of humanity’s interest, Putin isn’t the best to run Russia for humanity’s interest. But both men are incredibly successful at navigating power dynamics to maintain their control over their respective organizations.

> It seems like Russia could use another Yeltsin (or Gorbachev) more than Putin for its current situation.

He did say best in the world, not best that can be imagined; so unless you are saying there is another Yeltsin or Gorbachev available...

OTOH, Putin is himself an active reason why alternatives aren't readily available.

I think there are plenty of Russians alive who could do a better job than Putin. Possibly most of them. One of their defining advantages would be that they are not Putin and can renounce his actions.

Not for Russia's benefit but for his own.

I think they spent decades growing their economy and preparing to be independent of the west and now our sanctions are useless.

It feels like this situation is exactly what they want (and likely an historical inflection point, where we pit east vs west again). Dropping the cold war was needed because they had no resources (surprise, socialism doesn't work!).

I'm waiting for Taiwan next and then I'd say we are completely *** (especially looking at our reliance on the east for manufacturing / energy and how useless our governments are).

The point of sanctions isn't to hurt their economy (that would just make their people mad at us), it's to stop them from resupplying their military.

Their response is to become dependent on China instead.

Of the many things that might benefit Russia, another Boris Yeltsin is not among them.