Yegge was an early employee at Amazon and has been writing influential blog posts and developing massive software projects since before this guy was born. But sure, in his retirement he's pivoted to pump and dump schemes.
I had a guy crash out after I told him that "so and so said Thing was good" was not sufficient to say whether Thing was good or not.
I told him he needed to develop enough skill to determine that for himself or he'd constantly fall for hype.
My dude pasted a ChatGPT list of engineers who had ever said anything about LLMs and was like ARE THEY ALL WRONG??
... did you listen to nothing I said? lol
No one claimed “X said it’s good, therefore it’s good.” The point was that ignoring what experienced people say entirely is just as dumb as following them blindly.
You told me to “think for myself.” Great. Thinking for yourself doesn’t mean pretending expert opinion doesn’t exist. It means weighing it against your own understanding. That’s literally how learning works.
Calling it a “ChatGPT list” is just you dodging the question. If those people are wrong, explain why. If some are right for bad reasons, name them. Laughing and changing the subject isn’t an argument.
You’re shadowboxing a strawman and congratulating yourself for winning.
People who actually understand things can explain how they’re wrong. People who don’t just announce they’ve already reached a conclusion and declare further thought unnecessary.
If that’s your bar, then yes, no other reasoning is required, because none was applied in the first place.
“Crypto = scam” isn’t a filter, it’s a shortcut for people who don’t want to explain themselves. You didn’t analyze anything. You flinched and stopped.
What’s telling is how confident you are while saying nothing. No description of how the scam works. No incentives. No mechanics. Just “trust me, I’ve seen this before.”
If this is what you consider a clear negative signal, then yeah, everything must look very simple from where you’re standing. Simple is doing a lot of work for you here.
An appeal to authority is saying “X is true because this person said so.” That’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening is people treating expert opinion as evidence, not a verdict.
You say you don’t want appeals to authority, then you immediately offer your own opinion and expect people to take it seriously. Why? On what basis? Because it’s your judgment?
That’s the funny part. The moment you state an opinion, you’re asking others to weigh your credibility against someone else’s. You don’t escape authority, you just replace it with yourself.
Yegge’s opinion has weight because of his track record. It can still be wrong. Mine can be wrong. Yours can be wrong. That’s why people compare opinions instead of pretending they live in a vacuum.
Ignoring expert opinion entirely isn’t “independent thinking.” It’s just choosing to be uninformed and calling it a virtue.
Regardless, it’s a lot of words to again say “they are famous, so consider them more seriously” despite the obvious scam being perpetuated via crypto. The appeal to authority is you stating their credentials first, and none of the deductions you claim one should make from merit.
You keep restating a position no one is taking. No one said “they’re famous, therefore right.” That’s something you invented so you don’t have to argue against what was actually said.
Credentials don’t make an argument true. They explain why an opinion isn’t noise. Pretending otherwise doesn’t make you principled, it just makes you incurious.
If there’s an obvious scam, spell it out. If the reasoning is flawed, point to the step where it fails. You haven’t done either.
So far all you’ve contributed is tone policing, motive guessing, and now AI paranoia.
All your replies have severe clear AI slop smell, you’re not giving me any reason not to assume otherwise tbh. It’s more about whether you respect my replies to formulate your own answer, but given your appeal to authority, clearly you have no qualms allowing others (senior engineers, AI/LLMs) to determine them for you!
You haven’t engaged with the argument once. You’ve complained about credentials, then tone, then AI, then “respect.” That’s four pivots and zero substance.
I didn’t say “trust this person instead of thinking.” I said experience adds context. You keep pretending those are the same thing because otherwise you’d have to actually respond.
The AI accusation is just embarrassing. It’s the online version of “I can’t refute this, so I’ll imply you cheated.” That might feel clever, but it mostly signals panic.
If you’re as sharp as you seem to think you are, this shouldn’t be hard. Pick a claim. Explain why it’s wrong. Everything else is just noise you’re making to avoid that moment.
I also wasn’t aware that I’m speaking to someone who actually persistently appeals to authority and maintains a list of figures to bow down to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46783280
As such, this is where I get off this thread train. Seeya!
What actually happened is pretty obvious. You ran out of things to argue, so you switched to archeology. Scroll history, squint hard, invent a story, declare victory, announce departure.
That move isn’t rare. People do it when they don’t want to admit they’ve hit the end of their reasoning but still want to feel like they left on their own terms.
Confident people don’t need a backstory, a diagnosis, and an exit speech. They make the point and keep talking.
You're just quietly running away and hoping no one noticed.