https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2799035/

Smart people drink and smoke more; not less, potentially to self sooth/deal with the oppressive reality they find themselves in.

It is more like being a firefighter and being opposed to airlifting icebergs to drop on fires.

Sure, you'll get water eventually and you might even extinguish a fire; but how long does it take to organise and deliver, what can go wrong in the process, what are the consequences of a mistake like dropping it prematurely, and why are we ignoring the honking great big cheap river right next to the house fire we are fighting?

It's like expecting a fish to stop swimming - it feels like it's suffocating, it's going to panic and do everything it can to get back into the water, get moving again. The fish isn't playing 4d chess, it's just flipping all over the place until it feels safe again, and then probably forget all of the chaos minutes later.

How much this is applicable to the other examples - Musk, Napoleon - unclear. But saying they do "stupid" things without looking at why they might do stupid things is reductionist/overly simple/can PROBABLY be answered with psychology in most cases.

Here's a 3 minute explainer from the researcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZ1fSW7zevE

This model defines a few different categories of how people respond - "Withdrawal","Attack-Self" and "Avoidance", "Attack-Other".

If you were to look at your comments through the threads here, would you be able to classify your responses as matching any of the categories above?

As a hint, you may be surprised to learn the person with multiple comments in question I was referring to isn't you. Yet you've sought this out and decided the most suitable response to why are two groups posting responses at different rates is to attempt to relitigate an imagined argument.

IE; just looking at their puff piece demo for https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxKghrZU5w8

- semantic data integration/triplestores/linking facts in a database.

- feature extraction from imagery / AI detection of objects as an alarm

- push to human operators

You or I might expect this to be held to a high standard - chaining facts together like this better be darned right before action is taken!

But what if the question their software solves isn't we look at a chain of evidence and act on it in a legal/just/ethical manner but we have decided to act and need a plausible pretext; akin to parallel construction?

When you assess it by that criteria, it works fantastically - you can just dump in loads and loads of data; get some wonky correlations out and go do whatever you like. Who cares if its wrong - double checking is hard work; someone else will "fix" it if you make a mistake; by lying, by giving you immunity from prosecution, by flying you out of state or going on the TV, or uh, well, that's a future you problem.

To take a non US example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robodebt_scheme

Debt calculations were flat out wrong

The unstated goal/dogwhistle at the time was to punish the poor (cost more than it would ever recover)

It was partially stopped after public outcry with a few ministerial decisions.

It took years; people dying; a royal commission and a change of political party to put a complete stop to it.

No real consequences for the senior political figures who directly enacted this

Limited consequences for 12 of 16 public servants - no arrests, no official job losses, some minor demotions.

If the goal of the machine is to displace responsibility; the above example did its job.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-immigration-approval...

> Just 39% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing on immigration, down from 41% earlier this month, while 53% disapprove, the poll found.

This is not actually what the majority of people think and feel.

IE; from recent polling > 55%+ of Americans have “very little” confidence in ICE, while 16 percent only have "some".

That's ~71% of ordinary US folks; and I would wager many international folks are very clear eyed about the situation.

But why don't you see a ratio of 7/10 of top level comments critical? It's reasonable to assume that about half of those people are just keeping to themselves or part of the political middle that feel something is a "bit wrong"; but not quite enough to go yell into the internet about it. For the others, arguing is tiring and doesn't seem to change much. Watching the situation induces feelings of dread, despair or helplessness.

On the opposing side, that 29% of people are faced with the fact that they might actually be the "baddies" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToKcmnrE5oY), and a good number of them are flooding conversations to prove they are in fact "not"... because admitting otherwise would mean they are actually doing something quite morally or ethically wrong by their own or their community standards. Since that would be unthinkable! the only logical reaction is to post frequently in shrill defense.

If you keep that in mind - the relative psychology of each group - it's much easier not to despair if "everyone" seems to be saying the opposite of what you would expect.

Jan 23rd General strike, Minnesota: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Downtown... https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/1ql7eva/mn_01232...

This is not a 'vocal minority'.

Oh, that's one blue state; right? What do the rest of Americans think?

> The Economist/YouGov poll, 55 percent of respondents said they had “very little” confidence in ICE, while 16 percent said they have “some” confidence in the agency. Sixteen percent said they have “quite a lot” of confidence in ICE and 14 percent said they have “a great deal.”

Source poll: https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabRepor...

> As a Health Center staff member ('Victim-1') attempted to open the door for the volunteer, WILLIAMS purposefully leaned against the door, crushing Victim-1’s hand. Victim-1 yelled, "She’s crushing my hand," but WILLIAMS remained against the door, trapping Victim-1’s hand and injuring it.

> On the livestream on June 19, 2020, WILLIAMS stood within inches of the Health Center’s chief administrative officer and threatened to “terrorize this place” and warned that “we’re gonna terrorize you so good, your business is gonna be over mama.” Similarly, WILLIAMS stood within inches of a Health Center security officer and threatened “war.” WILLIAMS also stated that she would act by “any means necessary.”

The reason they could prosecute to this degree? https://msmagazine.com/2024/01/18/anti-abortion-surgi-clinic...

A member of the conspiracy admitted to the planning; they have text messages and detail of deciding who will risk arrest, after going over the fact they'd be trespassing and violating the FACE act.

Do you think the administrative and medical staff present in 2020 would agree with you? That the group that blockaded, threatened and assaulted in one instance access to health services are in fact the victims here of government overreach?

ICE are engaging in violence, warrantless forced entry to homes, at least two shootings that border on murder, they even tried to force entry into an Ecuadorian embassy.

They are detaining citizens at random, relocating them physically and in some cases releasing them; if they don't die in detention due to lack of access to medical care.

If you cannot see how these activities should be observed, documented, protested whilst still standing for professed Amercian values...

Edit: Ah excellent, downvotes without reply because facts are... uncomfortable!

Here's the sources:

https://kstp.com/kstp-news/top-news/ice-agents-blocked-from-... - Ecuadorian consulate.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/a-u-s-citizen-says-ice-f... - warrantless entry

https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-... - many, many US citizens detained only for charges to vanish at the merest scrutiny

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/27/five-year-ol... - deporting citizens

https://newrepublic.com/post/205458/ice-detainees-pay-for-me... - cutting off medical care

https://abcnews.go.com/US/detainees-heard-cuban-man-slammed-... - deaths in custody

Or did you place about 2-5 paragraphs per heading, with little connection between the ideas?

For example:

> Perhaps what some users are trying to express with concerns about ‘sycophancy’ is that when they paste information, they'd like to see the AI examine various implications rather than provide an affirming summary.

Did you, you personally, find any evidence of this? Or evidence to the opposite? Or is this just a wild guess?

Wait; nevermind that we're already moving on! No need to do anything supportive or similar to bolster.

> If so, anti-‘sycophancy’ tuning is ironically a counterproductive response and may result in more terse or less fluent responses. Exploring a topic is an inherently dialogic endeavor.

Is it? Evidence? Counter evidence? Or is this simply feelpinion so no one can tell you your feelings are wrong? Or wait; that's "vibes" now!

I put it to you that you are stringing together (to an outside observer using AI) a series of words in a consecutive order that feels roughly good but lacks any kind of fundamental/logical basis. I put it to you that if your premise is that AI leads to a robust discussion with a back and forth; the one you had that resulted in "product" was severely lacking in any real challenge to your prompts, suggestions, input or viewpoints. I invite you to show me one shred of dialogue where the AI called you out for lacking substance, credibility, authority, research, due dilligence or similar. I strongly suspect you can't.

Given that; do you perhaps consider that might be the problem when people label AI responses as sycophancy?

You work for Microsoft as an independent contractor, as a night watchman/groundskeeper. So do a number of others. You were hired because you and your crew of weirdos were writing the story of advanced gardening and building maintenace; which people including those at many famous and powerful companies used and found useful. A number of years ago someone said "huh, maybe these guys should get funding", and a few others agree; and Microsoft ends up in charge of distributing that funding.

The above still happens. They have locked your computer with a ransomware message that says "we will give you back access if you get rid of one of you". To lock your computer, which is airgapped, it would require someone with admin privileges to your computer to walk in and manually do this. It turns out one of your has colleagues done this, added an account for the Director of Night Maintenance at Microsoft to your machine.

You and almost all of the "paid employees", again, a number of whom are independent contractors, resign in protest; leaving only the person who tampered with your computer.

https://bsky.app/profile/duckinator.bsky.social/post/3lz6exz...

> The behavior Ruby Central exhibited was so egregious that I sincerely thought someone's account had been compromised at one point

During this chaos; which all happened between September 9 and September 18;

- at midday LA time/2:40pm New York time; Microsoft terminates the contract with one specific individual; who was the one they demanded the group gets rid of if they wanted access back - 8 hours later, that person locks the doors; changes nothing else, etc.

Some basic analysis about the situation you need to do:

- Did the actions on September 19th, even if you believe it was a crime of the most serious nature, justify the actions on Sept 9-18 where Microsoft took access, said whoopsie, then did it again?

- Treating the Sept 19 actions as a crime; did the person who did it do so with a criminal intent? (Mens rea). Did they intend harm? Or were they indifferent to the harm caused? Should this be prosecuted, has that person provided justification or similar that could in any way be reasonable doubt?

- If the actions on September 19 are a crime in your viewpoint; would paying/influencing someone to lock the accounts of all of the maintainers also be a crime? Why or why not?

Note that you'll want to read https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1030

First off, was anything involved a "protected computer"? No, probably not, not by the legal definition there; yes by what we as laypeople would assume.

But, let's roll with the assumption it's "literally a crime" and not a civil matter; but apply that standard equally.

> (4)knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-year period;

* Is the draft novel/rubygems source code a thing of value? Yes. $5000 worth? Tricky to say with the open source licencing! But RC were distributing $ to maintain it; and that cost them more than $5000/year. Cost does not equal value; but I think we can argue yes, kinda here.

> (7)with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any—

* Did anyone attempt to extort anyone else to remove a person? (Get rid of x if you want access back!) * Did that have value? (Gee, I hope the treasurer didn't post, it was about the funding deadlines/only to have that walked back!) Also a bit murky as the value isn't coming from the extortion directly, only indirectly.

> (b)Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.

* Did anyone conspire? (Two or more people agree to criminal act, followed by an overt act)

Can you plausibly see how if you try to apply US law to argue one individual on one side is a criminal; that same law would likely make the other side just as criminal; if not more so?

---

> none of the ones complaining were the original authors of gem nor bundler.

Doesn't hold water.

From the individual: https://andre.arko.net/2025/09/25/bundler-belongs-to-the-rub...

"I joined the team at a pivotal moment, in February 2010, as the 0.9 prototype was starting to be re-written yet another time into the shape that would finally be released as 1.0. By the time Carl, Yehuda, and I released version 1.0 together in August 2010, we had fully established the structure and commands that Bundler 2.7.2 still uses today."

IE: Claims to be a significant contributor, predating any "stewardship" by RubyCentral. I would argue this can be born out by contributions and the fact he proposed the darned merger with RC in the first place; and that merger assigns no intellectual property rights or similar.

Why is there (seemingly) no public offer to former maintainers to rejoin, or acknowledgement of wrongdoing having been done as part of this? It's practically zero cost to do that; as the Ruby core team is (largely) not the party that inflicted harm.

Politeness? Conspiracy to have done this all along? Cultural differences around public vs private opinions? Something else?

What would we think if this wasn't a software project but a hijacked community bus, being passed from party to party, pretending nothing is untoward about the whole situation while the passengers are still aboard? "Oh good, the new bus drivers are politely accepting the keys from the hijackers; all is well!"?

Edit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ruby/comments/1o8zz3e/comment/njywb... No discussion with maintainers

Because I once installed your project, I need to:

- Take over all of the accounts/access you AND all of your friends/co-maintainers used in connection with it

- Tell you it was a mistake, give back access temporarily

- Do it again!

- Have one of my board members who happens to be the treasurer say it was about the $

- Make a straight to camera YouTube post Addressing The Concerns

- Make a first "continuing our series of transparency" blog post a week later, where I use a dense corporate laden dialect to claim it was for the betterment of all mankind and definitely not about the $; because I need you to understand Where We Are Now; What This Is and What This Isn't.

- Open a Google forms question submission box.

- Smear your reputation, because you had an idea once about tracking which packages go to which companies; so I'll insinuate that you want to read everyone's mail and snoop through their undergarments drawer. What's that? My actions affected much more than just you? Quiet now, we're reshaping the narrative to smear you.

- Answer no questions, explaining that we chose to give you a regular series of Friday updates; but also We Want to Move On from the back and forth but also in that same publication have another go at the smear, because it partially worked.

- Donate the project to my state library, to take some of the heat off of me

Isn't that so much easier than typing "git clone" and "git remote add"?

(I am consistently flummoxed that a handful of people here are buying this narrative; instead of as you point out... Just applying a smidgeon of critical analysis about the usage of tools that the majority of us must use day to day and coming to the conclusion you do. Instead of doing this or accepting this conclusion, there's a frothy passion it seems for Appeal to Authority/Argument from Authority where any excuse, flaw, etc on the part of the maintainers is used to justify the whole chain of events.

It seems like it hits 5-7 facts and people can no longer manage them in short term memory, go and look at more than what is presented to them by a single party, etc; so they just default to the easiest mental shortcut.

For some reason I keep falling into the trap that "people are more educated, capable of critical thinking, and have easier access to data than ever before in history"; which I rationally know is not true)

https://github.com/rubygems/rfcs/pull/61

- Corporate entity doesn't have copyright over your creative output. Just because word can open and view ("run") your novel does not give them ownership.

- Locking your access completely on your resources would be akin to a ransomware attack or account compromise

Would you label those actions hostile? Or just accept it as right because "maintain security"?

If you would label the above hypothetical actions as hostile (if not outrageous overreach, something akin to theft?); what is fundamentally different to what Ruby Central did by taking over the source code of a GitHub repository?

- Account created 14 hours ago.

- Posts article crammed full of accusations

- Has a strong well formed opinion about "it's a crime", but didn't? read the content where the subject of the accusations has.... Already disclosed they had access in both private and public.

My account is also very new, because I have opted to discard my previous ones. I have used it to comment predominantly on this topic, as I sympathise with the maintainers.

So in the interests of making a similar disclosure is there any chance you are affiliated with RubyCentral through a business relationship with them, their legal counsel, a marketing or PR agency or anything of that nature?

You as a person who uses reddit have a general agreement most likely with the concept of reddiquette, and perhaps go to engage with diverse views, maybe to learn something, maybe to just have an argument. Normal internet forum stuff.

However, you are arguing with a vertically integrated propaganda machine that is basically an experimental weapons testing facility for rhetoric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Research_Agency but on so steroids, of which those steroids are on various white powders and no this isn't the War on Christmas. It's less obvious because this machine mimics normal, centrist US culture in ways that slip under the cognitive radar.

You could more easily recognize this if it were AI prompts in the style of 1984 or Pravda; but it's more difficult in this case - it is just rational enough to be ridiculous/incredulous; that it seems like debate is a suitable avenue; it aligns to your context enough and while you might not agree; you could see how 1 in 10 people might be misled.

As a result, you engage and then one of the following happens:

- You make a point so salient they banhammer you because you cannot control the narrative.

- Or they mock you, and rally their "side" into feeling superior as a reaction/answer to their side's questioning of "huh, are we the baddies?". Of course not, it's the "loser woke left antifa attack helicopter pronoun'd TROUBLEMAKERS", who are an outgroup and just don't think about it too hard, k? Don't do the hard work of self examination! Just yell at this outsider!

As a result you aren't engaging with the centre right you hoped to; and if you even get close you will be removed as a threat, ASAP.

The game being played by one participant is "try anything that catches attention, causes fear and lures people to our mindset"; vs your (reasonable, but ultimately mistaken) view that rational debate would correct this and mutual understanding may emerge (and that's a positive; win win social outcome)

This isn't your fault, even longtime slightly centrist conservatives end up falling victim to this trap; when they realize their values don't align to the mechanics above, and are surprised when they are turned on by their former allies.

Unless you have a firm grounding in human psychology and few qualms about manipulation; it is unlikely that discourse or debate will get you anywhere if based on facts, not feelings.

I would firmly encourage you to keep the instinct to engage in discourse; but find social forums where it is a lot harder for a propaganda machine to control the narrative. Will still be tough, but face to face interactions in common spaces can build community.

The "other side" of the political spectrum or almost any group is absolutely just as liable to end up in this situation. It is not some "right wing" specific problem, it is a small but powerful group hijacking others to further their own goals, and people protecting their interests by funding the small group.