3 ms·

I would say he had a conman's ethos. He didn't hack his diet, he concocted a narrative and conceived of a guise he could sell it under. And all the problems he

by bena 2y ago

I would say he had a conman's ethos. He didn't hack his diet, he concocted a narrative and conceived of a guise he could sell it under. And all the problems he reported having due to his diet neglected a very large part of that diet, namely the vast quantities of alcohol he consumed. So yeah, he died. That's sad for him and his people. And I'm sure he had some decent qualities as most people do. However, I won't remember him as a particularly honest or ethical man.

keybored 2y ago
> I would say he had a conman's ethos. He didn't hack his diet, he concocted a narrative and conceived of a guise he could sell it under. And all the problems he reported having due to his diet neglected a very large part of that diet, namely the vast quantities of alcohol he consumed. No. The euphemism then isn’t “hacker” but “disruptor”. Move fast and break things.
- bena 2y ago
  You know the bull isn't the hero in the china shop analogy, right? Moving fast and breaking things itself isn't something to be praised. If you have to lie to promote a course of action you believe will lead to better outcomes, maybe it's you who is wrong. Maybe that course of action won't lead to the outcomes you think. And if I have to replicate all of the work you did just to find out which of your results were related to what you were pushing, why should I take anything you say at face value?
  - keybored 2y ago
    Facetious.