Better link in the thread: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/06/openai-says-cour...
(As in, an actual article, not just a mastodon-tweet from some unknown (maybe known? Not by me) person making the title claim, with no more info.)
Looks like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Weinstein_(technologist..., he has been commentating on the Internet for about as long as it has existed.
Roughly how many posts on HN are by people you know?
Of those that are tweets and similar? Almost all of them (the ones I look at being interested in the topic anyway).
By 'know' I mean recognise the name as some sort of authority. I don't 'know' Jon Gruber or Sam Altman or Matt Levine, but I'll recognise them and understand why we're discussing their tweet.
The linked tweet (whatever it's called) didn't say anything more than the title did here, so it was pointless to click through really. In replies someone asked the source and someone else replied with the link I commented above. (I don't 'know' those people either, but I recognise Ars/even if I didn't appreciate the longer form with more info.)
thanks for engaging.
> The linked tweet (whatever it's called)
"post" works for social media regardless of the medium; not an admonishment, an observation. Also, by the time i saw this, it was already an Ars link, leaving some comments with less context that i apparently didn't pick up on. I was able to make my observation because someone mentioned mastodon (i think), but that was an assumption on my part that the original link was mastodon.
So i asked the question to make sure it wasn't some bias against mastodon (or the fediverse), because I'd have liked to ask, "for what reason?"
> > The linked tweet (whatever it's called)
> "post" works for social media regardless of the medium; not an admonishment, an observation.
It also works for professional journalism and blog-err-posts though, the distinction from which was my point.
> I was able to make my observation because someone mentioned mastodon (i think), but that was an assumption on my part that the original link was mastodon.
As for assuming/'someone' mentioning Mastodon, my own comment you initially replied to ended:
> (As in, an actual article, not just a mastodon-tweet from some unknown (maybe known? Not by me) person making the title claim, with no more info.)
Which was even the bit ('unknown') you objected to.