WHOAH.

Is this article really equating Palmer Lucky to Oppenheimer?

I don't know about equal but Luckey has achieved some pretty impressive things by age 31. I think people are blinded by his political activity.

> I don't know about equal but Luckey has achieved some pretty impressive things by age 31.

Having interacted with Luckey in a number of unpleasant ways, I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.

So you disagree his achievements are impressive? That's my only assertion.

And if so, you are saying his achievements are nullified by his behavior?

I do disagree his achievements are impressive.

As near as I can tell, he is successful for advocating for VR headsets.

I do not believe that's equivalent to splitting the atom. But hey, I guess we all see things our own way.

What achievements? Is productizing something we figured out in the 90s (you can do VR with a headset using some form of magnetic tracking) really comparable to splitting the goddamned atom?

The dude's a hacker, not a god.

Don't tease me with that cliffhanger. Throw me some breadcrumbs. Do tell.

No, the only mention of Oppenheimer in the article is this:

> Essentially, Luckey’s aim is to make the US and its allies almost impossible to harm — “a prickly porcupine” in his words — as well as to supply weapons powerful enough to put adversaries off attacking in the first place. “We want to build the capabilities that give us the ability to swiftly win any war we are forced to enter,” he says.

> The thesis is not original. It’s the same idea that led to Robert Oppenheimer’s development of the atomic bomb. America’s attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended the second world war, killing more than 100,000 people, and nuclear weapons have not been deployed in conflict since.

Newspaper headlines are usually added by the copy editors, not the author of the article.

Ah - so it was the FT editor that equated Palmer Luckey to Oppenheimer.

Is he not just saying that Palmer Luckey’s “idea” isn’t his own — Oppenheimer for example had it before? That’s hardly equating them

The title of the article is "How Silicon Valley’s ‘Oppenheimer’ found lucrative trade in AI weapons".

The implication is that Palmer is Silcon Valley's Oppenheimer.

EDIT: Although, now that you mention it, Oppenheimer is in quotes. I guess it's possible that the FT is being sarcastic.