Re:“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”
by tomjen3 on Sunday June 07, 2015 @11:54AM
(#9675112)
Almost certainly not, but that is the way of people. That's a separate question from whether they are right or wrong though. I distinctly don't like the way things are going and believe me I have no sympathy for the political views of Curtis, but the talk isn't about that. If Brianna Wu could actually deliver a technical talk, I say let her. If he wanted to talk about neoreaction there are other places he can go to.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”
by yummyfajitas on Sunday June 07, 2015 @12:01PM
(#9675157)
I'm not sure if you meant to imply that Yarvin wanted to talk about neoreaction, but he distinctly did not. His talk was about Urbit: https://github.com/urbit/urbit
Re:“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”
by tomjen3 on Sunday June 07, 2015 @12:38PM
(#9675318)
I know, I was trying to contrast letting him speak on neoreaction with letting him speak on orbit.
Re:“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”
by hga on Sunday June 07, 2015 @12:45PM
(#9675349)
Do you think there's now the slightest chance that urbit can win in the technology marketplace, or get any mind share?
I suppose others can copy its ideas without attribution, but if involvement in it potentially threatens your career....
Re:“A Statement with My View on Curtis Yarvin and Strange Loop”
by jpt4 on Sunday June 07, 2015 @12:59PM
(#9675409)
Urbit was initally released into the Public Domain, and still retains that spirit even though circumstance compels the project to now bear the MIT License - I suspect non-attributed copying would not be challenged.