Mao and Che have legions more fans than Elon Musk, while his contributions are net positive (even with all the deadline misses and terrible decisions on various things) and theirs are strongly negative.

Sadly it all changed around the time of “pedo guy”

Note that this is a minority position, most of the world does not live in the West and does not share your view on Mao and Che having a "strongly negative" contribution.

For context, Ellison was convicted of financial crimes which, in part, funded Manifund, and now is drawing a salary from Manifund. This comment on the Manifund substack (by a Manifund fundee!) lays out the concern clearly: https://open.substack.com/pub/manifund/p/caroline-ellison-ha...

> I find it useful to distinguish goal alignment and value alignment.

I think this is fundamentally a wrong path. Doing this imports all the confusion that humans have about their goals and values, including the consequence that a system's values and goal can conflict, but ultimately values are just a simplified description of other goals, and whatever the system does is in service of it's actual goal. Once you merge all the values and the goal of whatever task, there is a state (or some states) of the world that the system is working to produce, and that's the ACTUAL goal, and inasmuch as it does describe a state of the world, has no incoherence or internal contradictions. This may require prioritizing some values over the ostensible goals, or the reverse, but that has to happen anyway for action to be taken! Merging them makes it explicit and leaves no place for confusion about supposed conflicts between "values" and "goals" to hide.

Decade and a half, really. Eternal September was 1993 or 1994, right?

Predictions being hard is what makes them valuable as a check on insight and accuracy!

Ok, but it also means we shouldn’t immediately discredit people who make incorrect short-term predictions, because those are really hard and no individual person consistently gets them right. You can worship at the altar of short-term prediction if you really want, but if you want to be logically consistent, that entails never taking anybody seriously ever.

Since almost everything eventually goes bust, I wouldn't agree that this was particularly valuable, unless the analysis proved out in other ways. It's like the saying that some economists have predicted 10 of the last 4 recessions. The analysis that leads to that prediction may or may not be valuable, but is only valuable if it predicts something, because otherwise how can you know it has any accuracy at all?

That's very different from faking a bunch of excited chatter and making up happy customers, which is what the original comment was about:

> Nobody cared about or was using Mac Mini's for OpenClaw, but there were all of these very suspicious posts from accounts that were clearly Apple [...]

Python 3(000) was an opportunity to fix all the things, so in a sense, the modern Python is less than 20 years old.

They didn't fix nearly enough, and then everyone complained about too much being fixed, and acted like twelve years wasn't enough time to adapt.

Several of these do exist already, and one of them was never a promised project. This objection seems like it's from 2016.

Terrestrial datacenter legal restrictions are how SpaceX expects to make a lot of its money in the next 10+ years, so I would be less surprised to find them lobbying for restrictions than against, presuming they spend at all on it.

It's not a zero sum market, supply is nowhere near meeting demand, in the short term restrictions also hurt SpaceX because they are building out their own terrestrial datacenters in Memphis etc.