albedoa

This seems like a massively under-reported story.

We did not appoint you as the decider of what constitutes flaimbait.

Buddy, you are arguing by proxy with the dictionary, which is a descriptivist text. Go yell at Merriam-Webster.

Your understanding of the word is not standard.

That hbn user has had these delusions for at least two years. They are not interested in evidence: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42000121

You could simply read the linked text yourself. This is worse than asking someone to google something for you.

Is it missing that fact? It would be a pretty glaring flaw in the co-star trajectory modeling.

> The former Starbucks CEO is a classic example. His infamous interview with Cramer on CNBC is the textbook of what it looks like when some McKinsey consultant gets actually put in charge. It was a total shitshow.

Do you have a link to the specific interview you mention? Google seemingly doesn't know of an infamous one.

I want to be very clear here because the implications are extremely funny: Do you not consider sending a letter to be an interaction??

> the ones make the world place to live in

You joke, but this happened to my cousin.

> Like, I get the point you're trying to make, but I hope you're aware it's a non-sequitur in context?

Your hope should have been that amelius was not aware that it's a non-sequitur, because that is correctable. But then they kept posting and removed all doubt.

> How much more hostile do you want to be?

There is no limit. The request is not coming from genuine curiosity — they are asking for a stricter definition so that they can attack any one that you provide, no matter how sensible. The befuddlement is deliberate.

I enjoy hackernud3s's contributions and am glad that they are listening to the silent upvotes instead of whatever the fuck it is that you're on about.

You tipped your hand by calling the metaphor silly immediately before admitting that you are confused by it.

Pretty unfair of you to conflate a movement's stated goals with its behavior when the comment that you are replying to is very obviously talking about the latter. So rationalist!

Yes, you are getting it.

You misread a comment so badly that you ended up responding to a completely different and made up comment. Your unwillingness to admit that you were wrong is way worse than whatever reflex you are ranting about.

Buddy, you are naming the things that changed.

> I feel like people who don't get it immediately are just being deliberately obtuse.

Okay. I don't believe that you got it immediately.

That's not incompatible with "it should be the standard for everything". We are desperate for a standard, however bad it is.

If you have watched a normie use AI and thought See?! It's not rocket science! We are all the same. then buddy, you are a normie. They are very very bad at it. (If you have not watched an average someone use AI, then I highly recommend it, if for no other reason than to understand your placement on the curve.)

> Your job will be gone and so will mine.

I mean, that's probably true, but the person you are replying to is talking about the present.

You actually don't speak for us. On the contrary, it is because of threads like this that I am aware of bcherny's reputation. You are woefully ill-equipped to be assigning value to anyone's contributions or policing their tone, especially as someone who so eagerly laps up what he is fed by bad-faith actors.

> I’m surprised that you haven’t noticed this yourself

How much money have you lost to crypto scams.

Never stop posting, you are doing great.

Oh ya? Is that why the parent prefaced that obvious and indisputable fact with "IMO"?

We are giving you an opportunity to correct yourself. You are instead trying to make your nonsensical statement make sense. Not only does the first part of your sentence literally contradict the second part:

> We don't have enough accurate knowledge to say [one way or the other], and it doesn't seem to be the case at all [based on our incomplete knowledge].

But it is in no way equivalent to this:

> We can't say that for sure, but my money is on it not being a simple case of intellectual property theft

That is a different sentence.

It's wild to watch you lecture someone who just made you aware of the topic that you are lecturing him about.

> These are boomer-tier talking points

Add to your excellent takedown the implication that any of us can walk into a school with our résumé and ask for a teaching interview. It's the most meme-ified of the boomer memes presented unironically.

It is unfathomably weird of you to post like a raving lunatic and then get pissy when we downvote you.

> You're not paying to use HN.

Oh for sure man, this absolutely looks like you were only concerned and talking about paid services:

> Broad and perpetual license over inputs and outputs, and even your name and profile picture.

That quote supports the claim being made by the person who you are calling wrong.

Even the staunchest libertarians disagree with your understanding. Embarrassed that anyone holds or ever held this view, they have left you behind.