Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by samrus on Sunday April 12, 2026 @08:22PM
(#47746044)
Interesting way to put it. If it did solve problems, you would be ok with it happening?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by furyofantares on Sunday April 12, 2026 @08:45PM
(#47746179)
They're just speaking to a hypothetical person who thinks this will solve a problem. In no way does their post imply they'd be ok with it if it solved some problem.
A little wild to me that so many of the replies don't understand that.
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by samrus on Monday April 13, 2026 @02:59AM
(#47748619)
No no i do get that of course, and i agree. Its just that the thing that struck me about the phrasing was that its a bit revealing. We are reviled by violance but we do allow its use in society everyday. But what violance and for what utility is acceptable seems to be a matter of debate. The line doesnt seem to be universally agreed on given the passion seen in this thread
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by __MatrixMan__ on Sunday April 12, 2026 @09:54PM
(#47746636)
Not gp, but if they were exceptionally large problems... Yeah.
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by locao on Sunday April 12, 2026 @10:18PM
(#47746799)
Violence is never but sometimes the answer.
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by drivingmenuts on Sunday April 12, 2026 @08:26PM
(#47746062)
If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by WarOnPrivacy on Sunday April 12, 2026 @08:35PM
(#47746118)
> If it did solve a problem, it's possible it would be legal.
FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor. I think this illustrates how a law can protect problems rather than solving them.
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by ivewonyoung on Sunday April 12, 2026 @09:54PM
(#47746638)
> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor
Not true.
Source?
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by treetalker on Sunday April 12, 2026 @10:03PM
(#47746688)
The truth is somewhere in the middle. Overview: https://eu.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2025/06/13/fl...
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by WarOnPrivacy on Monday April 13, 2026 @12:45AM
(#47747693)
>> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor
> Source?
the defendant in the lawsuit can use the plaintiff’s participation
in a "riot," as defined by the 2021 law, as "an affirmative defense."
This means that the person being sued can argue in court that their
action was justified by the riot.
https://api.politifact.com/article/2025/jun/13/can-florida-d...>> FL crafted a law to help safeguard someone who gets sued for running over a protestor
> Not true.
This last bit seems like a pretty firm assertion. What is your source for it?
Re:Sam Altman's home targeted in second attack
by ivewonyoung on Monday April 13, 2026 @08:29PM
(#47759740)
For starters, the headline of your link disproves your assertion.
Second, a rioter is not the same as a protestor.
Third, someone must have been in threat from a rioter to use that defense successfully.