We're pausing Asimov Press

I get the impression that if you're uninterested in either reading enough of the press release to get to the parts where they mention what they did, or navigating to the top-level index for the blog, where what they write about is made very plain, then you're not the type of person who would give any shits about what they write about.

It comes across as a putdown. Much better and just was easy is to share some of what you know with others (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

He was really good at explaining very complex stuff, in a simple, approachable manner.

It's so not ok that we have laws against misleading people. Not against this particular misleading (I don't think, although if Asimov had a formal estate they could probably sue).

I can't open "Tom Cruse's Fine Wine" because I'm not Tom Cruse. It's wrong morally but also illegal. We have laws against things like that and Tom Cruse would surely sue my ass, successfully. The proof of that is that there is no "Tom Cruse's **" businesses out there.

It might stop being illegal if the person dies because to sue you have to have standing. Unless there is formal trust like e.g. Tolkien's works and business affairs which probably have standing to sue "Tolkien's Fine Wine".

A child would also take offense on being mislead. Not this particular misleading because it only misleads people who know who Asimov is and like his books. Your hypothetical child doesn't.

But tell a child you'll buy him an ice cream if he finishes his chores and let's see how he reacts if you mislead him by not buying an ice cream.

You must have learnt this at some point.

Are you human? You're talking like you're an alien from another planet. Unfamiliar with humanity and it's customs.

Here are some facts that may interest you:

1. Humans do not hatch from eggs, they grow from spores underground and emerge as children.

2. There is little need for learning in human society, as children inherit most knowledge they need as genetic memories from their parents.

3. Humans never discovered fire, usually they developed the technology for electric heating elements first. Only later did they work out how to use fire technology.

I could see maybe 20 years after death being reasonable.

is the last thing we need. Granted, picking a famous name you don't have any association with is an a-hole move. Not all a-hole moves should be illegal.

To flip your rhetorical trick against you: would it be ok if they did it 1 year after death? If no, then I'm "interested in more detail about when the odiousness crosses into being socially acceptable for you".

To expose your rhetorical trick: you wanted him to admit that it's ok after SOME time therefore it's ok after THIS time. You put the burden of proof for defending THIS time (i.e. 34 years) as acceptable on him. Which is hard.

Sneaky but only if don't get exposed.

Because equally correct framing is: if you accept that it's NOT ok after SOME time (1 year) then the burden of proof for defending it's ok THIS time (i.e. 34 years) is on you.

So go ahead, tell us what is the exact number of years that makes it ok. Defend YOUR number the way you wanted him to defend his.