> The man was reeling from what happened. He blames himself and his work

Based on what? I don't particularly feel like he should blame himself, but I don't think he does. Can you point out where in this post he blames himself?

That's terrible that someone did that. I think that's wrong, and people that do that should be in prison.

But if the rest of what was written didn't matter, it wouldn't be written. He thought it was important enough to put it in. It's there to be read and discussed.

And I have to point out, we're not talking about a couple off the cuff remarks he may have rushed. About 95% of the post is about his ambitions for OpenAI. So pearl clutching that people are actually discussing the meat of the post in a tech forum reads performative.

> or saying they "don't condone violence" as a pretext to do exactly that

Maybe I just don't know what comments you're referring to, but you seem to be lumping every other post critical of Sam in with the worst comments, saying they are condoning violence, and that is disingenuous. I mostly see people expressing they aren't surprised this happened given how Sam openly markets his tech as a dangerous and unpredictable product that only he can steward, and maybe even finding his response to be a bit opportunistic in a tone deaf way, which hardly rises to the level of condoning violence.

I am willing to hear you out on this, but you're going to have to explain how this is different from any other thread on HN that you've moderated. Political violence, on a much bigger scale than this I may add, hits front page news, and you have more than normalized that as a discussion topic. Whether it's drone strikes, wars, or people being openly executed in the street, it seems the tragedy of human life is an open debate on HN, and you can bet a good 50% of this site will be writing comments exactly like the ones in this thread. And hell, I can't say one way or the other if threads like this are even worth allowing.

But now a tech CEO with lots of security gets a Molotov thrown at his metal gate, and people make the same comments, and suddenly a line has been crossed? How are the comments in this thread any different than comments like this, which involved people who were actually killed [1][2]. I have seen hundreds of comments on this site dictate to me how I should feel about the lives of others. I am often sickened by them. That's before we talk about Sam's actual role in how he shapes our society. It's not "sickening" to feel the need to footnote a condemnation of what happened, it's completely expected.

Again, maybe you're talking about worse comments than I'm seeing, but I feel frustrated as people have regularly brought you examples of escalating violent rhetoric on this site and been dismissed. Outside of people explicitly saying Sam deserved it, which I don't agree with, every other comment here reads like regular HN to me. If that saddens you, maybe there needs to be a different approach to moderation altogether.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46551716 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47688076

How? He said he doesn't think the government should seize the means of production. That's directly relevant to what we're talking about.

> In a 1976 interview, Sanders said, “I favor the public ownership of utilities, banks and major industries,” and when told that sounded like socialism, he replied, “Of course.”

I don't really care what his economic beliefs were 50 years ago. We have a long political career we can draw from. We don't need to cherry pick quotes from when he was 30 to try and find hidden belief systems. He's been pretty consistent his entire career.

> More recently, Sanders has also been described as backing worker ownership plans, with reporting that he was encouraging workers to take control of the means of production

A work ownership plan in a company is completely different from what you implied, which was "Bernie Sanders wants to seize the means of production." You made it sound like he wants to nationalize everything under the sun.

> although its supported by nyc who by your logic is a communist? Thats hardly a definitive test. There are more relevant industries

I can't make out what you're trying to say here.

So yes there is.

https://pjmedia.com/ron-radosh/2016/01/18/no-new-york-post-b...

They call the United Packinghouse Workers Union a communist organization, which is a flat out lie. The UPWA was a mainstream CIO (later AFL-CIO) union. It wasn't even among the unions the CIO purged in 1949 for being communist-led. By the time Bernie was involved in 1964, the union had formally banned communists from holding office under the AFL-CIO Ethical Practices Code, and Martin Luther King Jr. literally sat on the commission overseeing that compliance. The union is famous historically for its civil rights work, not for being a communist front.

They said Eugene Debs was "arrested for espionage" which is a lie. He was arrested for being critical of the Wilson administration. It was under the "Espionage act," but it was not espionage, just good old-fashioned arresting people for speaking their mind. They neglect to mention Debs refused to join the Communist party when they split off from the Socialist party.

They implied the Young People’s Socialist League was a communist organization, when it was extremely anti-communist.

They said the "American People’s History Society" was an organ for Marxist propaganda, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest that. They are implying this organization had a long history of spreading communist propaganda and that the Eugene Debs film is further evidence of that. But that's not the case. They just made a Eugene Debs film, which by itself, doesn't really rise to the level of Marxist Propaganda. He was a socialist, and an important figure in American History. Or is American History just supposed to cover the Carnegies of the world?

It's funny to watch people pearl clutch over a politician championing workers rights because it might overlap slightly with the politics of a distant revolution while we have a sitting President that kills citizens, bombs children's hospitals, jails journalists, and publicly salivates over the idea of inflicting retribution on anyone left of the alt-right. This is concern trolling at it's finest.

[1] https://pjmedia.com/ron-radosh/2016/01/18/no-new-york-post-b...

What I'm suggesting is Elixir has everything you're talking about in Phoenix, yet it's still an extremely niche language most people haven't even heard of. Because come on, it's a totally different paradigm than what people are trained to program in. I understand the mental math of "easier means more people," but I don't think that's really going to cut it for Clojure. I had full projects spun up the minute I started learning, but that wasn't where the difficulty was.

So yes, I think having a solid framework is good for Clojure, but the original person suggested it's not popular because it doesn't have one, and I just don't think that's true.

But I'm not sure a framework is really going to change that onboarding process, or help with network effects that much. Elixir has a de facto framework, but it's barely more popular than Clojure. I mean, we had Leiningen starter kits and we have Kit. But what's confusing to me wasn't setting up a project, it was learning how it was wired together. Wiring small libraries together and just passing data can feel surprisingly leaky, and I don't really have to peak into the internals of Laravel the way I do Clojure projects.

I think Biff is a promising step in the right direction. I think the way it has wired things up is easier to follow. But for whatever reason, they made the choice to use XTDB as a default, which is a huge cognitive burden for newcomers. They have an article on how to use something else instead, but this is already getting out of the "it just works" territory if you haven't even learned Clojure yet. But the author is a really nice and talented person, and I am looking forward to seeing where it goes.

> I think there are lots of well maintained Django projects. In fact, if I do a search on AI and on google for what one web stack probably has the lowest overall total cost of ownership including maintenance years down the line, Django usually is what comes up, without even specifically searching for/mentioning it.

Having used Clojure, Laravel, Spring, and Django, I wouldn't touch Django again with a 10 foot pole. I don't know what you're referring to by "doing a search of lowest cost of ownership" but it sounds pretty unscientific. Anecdotally, I do legacy apps, and I have picked up people's Django apps, and I've never loved what I saw. It's a classic fast to start, slow to maintain framework. Huge businesses have been built on it, but huge businesses have been built on everything.

Sure, but that's completely different from what they were responding to to, which was someone insinuating the Claude Code CLI has secret sauce that makes it better than the competition.

Well over here, 30% still approve of it and they will openly praise how much money DOGE "saved us." It's quite eye opening talking to them. They live in a totally different reality

Any time they act like they disapprove of something the administration is doing, like the aimless war, they will change their tune in a few weeks when Fox gets it's talking points down.

Edit: From what I can tell, Sublime is allocated 100mb of virtual memory even if it's only using about 10mb in practice.

That's why huge concessions nobody asked for were made to the AI industry in the Big Beautiful Bill.