As a resident of Philly I'd say you've got to remember the permanent class war happening here. Children die in elementary schools because there isn't enough funding for a school nurse.

To us on HN, a hitchhiking robot is a cute and friendly distraction. To someone with no capital or prospects a hitchhiking robot is a cruel joke, and to destroy it is an act of resistance. This perspective is often missed by the media and general discussion.

"To someone with no capital or prospects a hitchhiking robot is a cruel joke, and to destroy it is an act of resistance."

Give me a break, I grew up in a poorer place with worse health care and that is an act of vandalism and people who haven't been taught decent values. Don't make it some class warfare thing or inevitably.

It's not resistance. That is the talk of people trying to justify crappy behavior and trying very hard not to blame the people who did it. They did a criminal act. Destroying the robot didn't save someone, it wasn't the final resort of someone trying to feed their family, it was just an act of destruction.

It would be interesting to hear what other types of property are ok to destroy in the name of social justice.

I don't agree with destroying hitchbot.

However, I can see a strong social justice argument for destroying the property of people who gain profit and/or power from destroying the lives of others. Their behaviors are profitable and there is no legal means to make their behaviors unprofitable, so doing illegal things that cost them money, such as destroying their property, is the only means to dis-incentivize their behavior.

I do think destruction of property can be an ethical action, but I don't think it's a smart thing to do for legal reasons.

By what process are you going to determine what constitutes "destroying the lives of others"?

Ugh, what a small-minded question. If you can't figure out a definition of "destroying the lives of others" that works for you, that's a failure of your own imagination. Use your brain. Just because there are a myriad of valid answers doesn't mean it's a deep, difficult question.

I think the post you're replying to was mostly just trying to propose a possible narrative to explain this incident. We have no reason to believe this particular narrative is true, but trying to understand the motives for other people's actions is a healthy exercise, I think, and I'd be interested in hearing some of your possible explanations.

Police cars.

Anything belonging to rich people who couch their criticism in passive-aggressively neutral musing, I should expect.

Please don't make throwaway accounts to conduct political flamewars on HN.

Please don't conduct political flamewars on HN at all.

It's a sense of realism where only those rights have meaning, that you can up hold, with brute force, the same way wealth f.ex. allows threatening and engaging adversaries with lawyers and court fees.

We don't have school nurses in, i believe, all of europe. Are children here dying in school? I didn't think so.

I have no idea to which country you are referring. I can't find any broad consensus, and all I can find are postings for internships in student health services.

I also think you're really underestimating the severity of the problem we have here. I'm not talking about a reduction in on-site staff towards a centralized service. I'm referencing a school known to be infected with mold[1] where a child died[2] from an asthma attack solely because there were no health workers or medical supplies available. These deaths[3] have been ongoing since the 2013 school year when the city decided to close 23 schools[4] and severely overcrowd the rest.

This of course on top of the police brutality that has taken national headlines lately but have been a permanent fixture of this city. I highly recommend the documentary Let The Fire Burn[5] for a clear example of this type of warfare.

[1]: http://citypaper.net/News/Philly-School-District-blocks-a-fe... [2]: http://citypaper.net/News/He-says-his-daughter-might-be-aliv... [3]: http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/another-student-dies-school-no-nu... [4]: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/education/philadelphia-off... [5]: http://netflix.com/Movie/Let-the-Fire-Burn/70274329

What's "cruel" about it? I can see a few motivations, but that one I don't get.

Probably something to do with rubbing people's noses in the status/wealth differences, I'd expect. Don't send useless expensive toys out to interact with people in what you know are poor areas (even if, well, you didn't choose that to be where it went).

> Children die in elementary schools because there isn't enough funding for a school nurse.

You mean there isn't enough funding for the number of students there. There's plenty of funding for fewer students.

Destroying a robot isn't an act of resistance because the robot wasn't oppressing them nor was it responsible for their situation in life.

edit: as always feel free to engage in discussion instead of drive-by downvoting

Aren't drunk teenagers known for vandalizing things? It doesn't even need to be motivated by anything to do with the robot itself, breaking shit's just plain fun.