I think it's a mistake to put Musk in that category. It harms your entire point. The other two express real human opinions (that one is free to strongly disagree with). Musk purposefully makes himself first and foremost a troll. He negatively affects our society, socially speaking, and it's only human to hate him. He invites it willingly.
This doesn't seem like a crazy take. The situation is horrible all around, and the reaction to the situation is hard to demonize from a humanistic point of view. This isn't the wealthy complaining about the homeless sleeping on benches. It's a dramatic crisis perpetuated by people who are not, largely, mentally ill in the sense that some homeless people are.
it only seems not-crazy if you also accept the implication "gypsys COULD live in housing like all of us normal people, but instead choose to live in parks and shit in bushes" - instead of framing it as a failure of housing policy or mental health, its being made a personal (moral) failure of individuals. That's the gross part.
Starting off with an analogy about shooting wolves frames things in a decidedly violent way that makes me uncomfortable. I would not, ever, compare a group of humans with a group of animals that i am advocating for culling. I know enough history to know who does that.
> The vagrants are literally shitting in the bushes
This is a simple failure of civics. If you have people somewhere, you provide them toilets or you get shit on the ground. Cities do it when festivals and street parties happen - but they don't do it when homeless poeple show up, and then they spin it as disgusting behaviour on the part of the people. Everybody shits. If you had no access to a toilet, or place to dispose of your shit, you would shit on the street or in the bushes too. Fixating on shit is also an attempt to rile up your disgust reaction, and link it to a group of people.
> Partly because it didn't tolerate vagrants and homeless people taking over public spaces (as has happened in so many American cities)
A leading lie. American cities have problems with public homelessness because they have no social safety net, and an economy that drives up homelessness. Crackdowns, like my city has done, only spreads the problem out and makes providing services like toilets impossible. It wasn't as bad before not because it "wasn't tolerated" but because the economic conditions were less harsh in the postwar era.
> You have to act. You have to protect the sheep. Standing idly by while your livestock is devoured by predators or your neighborhood is taken over by migrants is a pathetic abdication of any functioning society's most basic duty to its citizens.
This is a straight up fascist mentality. Us vs them. Protect our weak from their strong. It leads VERY dark places. Ask yourself this - why are the wolves the migrants? Could you not just as easily frame them as the sheep in need of protecting? Have they not been abandoned and pushed out by society? Without a barn to sleep in, the sheep will wander where they aren't welcome - is that the sheep's fault, or the shepherd's?
> If you have people somewhere, you provide them toilets or you get shit on the ground.
I have no idea if you've traveled much, but this has not been my experience traveling throughout major cities in Europe.
There's often NOT public bathrooms ANYWHERE yet streets are much cleaner than somewhere like San Francisco, where there actually are some public bathrooms.
Absolutely. I agree with 90% of what you're saying. The responsibility of civics (though I think you're oversimplifying - see my sibling comment), the dark implications of the animal analogy, etc. But I don't think what he is saying is so unreasonable, considering the catastrophe to which he is reacting, as to warrant an attitude of "demonize everything he does, even unrelated software projects" (yet).
Essentially I feel the same way as him (I wouldn't write about it in the same menacing way, but I feel the same way). There are multiple catastrophic culture clashes going on across the western world. It's a real, serious, hysterical crisis. We need to address it as humanely as possible.
As long as the suggestions remain similar to things like "enable them to stop the disruption on their own", "forcefully but lawfully stop the behavior", or "move them", then I have a hard time not at least sympathizing, even if I don't agree with the letter of the suggestion. Until the suggestions escalate to "kill them" or "imprison them indefinitely or in cruel conditions", then I don't believe we have crossed the line into absolutely indefensible territory.
It's tempting to portray what he is saying as "kill them" (since that's the obvious analogy with wolves), but it's simply not the case in reality. He is using a dramatic analogy, but not suggesting genocide.
I also don't believe in rhetorical analogies. They are a distraction. I'm not interested in extrapolating the wolf analogy from his post, to your post, and beyond. It's dumb, frankly (not on your part - on his).
Yes, I'm baffled that more commenters aren't confused by this. Even with the full context of the drama surrounding DHH, I still have no clue what the author is trying to imply, or why they feel the need to imply it instead of stating it.
It's especially bizarre because they start off saying "Thank me, I just listened to a 5 hour interview with DHH so you don’t have to," and then they don't say anything at all.
I agree that the article is quite short, but it is not true that the article said nothing at all.
For instance, the article quite clearly makes a connection between money being pumped into Omarchy, and this, in turn, most likely leading to a linux distributions that would quite possibly be beneficial to various Big Bro agendas (plus, advertisement for AI in general, aka "look ma, AI slop produced this AWESOME distribution"; and by the way, rails marketing was EXACTLY like that in 2007 or 2008 too). This in turn points to the possibility that Omarchy is a Big Bro project. Another connection made is that this will be used to maximize costly token sales. Now - the author does not provide strong statements on the latter, but the former is already known. Look at the "donors" and "sponsors". Tell me this has zero influence? We could already see this before with shopify, and DHH is part of that group. Look how much influence they bought in ruby; see how developers got whacked out of ruby due to that, who then built https://gem.coop/about/faq/. There is definitely an influence via money - there is no denying that.
As for not having much to say about a five hours interview - well. That could be the fault of the author. Or perhaps DHH does not have anything substantially to say for five hours. Who knows. I don't think I can afford 5 hours of my life having to listen to DHH ever since his "I hate wolves and hobos!" entry: https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
I tired Omarchy before I judge it. Also listened to the 5 hours podcast in a period of 10 days, consuming it each day on the way to work. Skipped some parts.
So, I installed Omarchy on my Thinkpad T14 T1 Gen 2021 laptop and maaan I love this OS.
I read that article you were mentioning about wolves and hobos! All I understood was this so called guy named DHH loves Copenhagen and wants that city no to smell like shit, and wants homeless guys to go live in a shelters. Whats wrong with that?
Anyway, Omarchy has its own kernel, own repo with Cloudfare CDN, safe from AUR packages and an awesome team around it. More people move to linux better right? Year of the linux desktop, right? All this OS is doing is that. I hope it continues. Please do try it, ignore this man DHHs politics, for example just like I ignored Bill Clintons white house fiasco.
> Does art stop being art because it was AI generated? I don't think so.
I think so, but I also don't feel strongly about that. I.e. I don't think there is one correct definition of the word "art", and I also don't think it matters in practice, most of the time. It's easily the most subjective word in our language, and arguments about its meaning are moot in most contexts.
In this context: AI art is, conceptually, obnoxious and offensive, like the smell of rotting garbage. Whether it's also "art" by dictionary definition is secondary, and not interesting.
That's not a false dichotomy in context. The comment being responded to plainly stated "HN has a massive problem where it's low key fostering right wing ideology." They didn't even bother using the signal words that mean "bad things", e.g. "far", "extreme", "Nazi". They simply stated that "right wing ideology" is not allowed.
It's OK to foster right-wing ideology, or left-wing ideology. That's clear even if it's true that one of them is "more correct" or "more moral" on average. But regardless, it should go without saying, and it's disturbing that you are implying otherwise.
Maybe you forgot to add the "far" to "right/left wing", since that's usually what people use as shorthand for "the bad stuff on that side"?
It's a good question. I just don't personally believe it's a challenging one. I'm comfortable drawing the line at simple AI art ("simple" as in nothing beyond some hours spent prompting - for somebody who finds a creative way to take it beyond that, I'd come back to the question).
I never mentioned the definition of art, though effort is indeed one of many interesting variables in the identity and perception of all creative endeavors (with the caveat that effort does not have to mean time or physical labor).
You wrote:
"Should we welcome all forms of art? If not, where do we draw the line?"
You didn't ask if it was art. You asked about welcoming it. I gave my personal answer.
I might add another thought onto that post, which is, maybe rather than not being art, it's closer to being somebody else's art? Where "somebody" is an aggregate of other artists. Of course that's not quite right either. As I said in the linked post, it's just a semantic argument, which can be fun but isn't really interesting.
Right, I think it's basically just the permanent phenomenon that if a community is mostly politically on side A, then they over-perceive the presence of B-leaning comments and the downvoting of A-leaning comments, and vice versa. "Wow, HN is so B", says the A guy, because HN is 20% B. I've seen this exact same thing in conservative-leaning communities regarding liberal content.
When a person reads content that is more attuned to their political 'norms', it tends not to register as political information at all. When they come across opposing views, it creates friction, gets stronger attention, and becomes memorable. It can lead to the perception that "HN is extremely X biased" in either direction, based on who you ask.
Everything is political. It is impossible for it to not be. But it is easy to forget that when someone is espousing similar views, then the politics is just background noise and tuned out.
