Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | more CoastalCoder's commentslogin

My working theory is that Trump is best understood as an epically tragic character.

So desperate to be valued and liked, that he desperately grabs at anything and everything to get the acclaim that, under normal circumstances, would signify that.

His besetting character flaws foreclose any possibility of attaining the actual approval he seeks.

And so, with his misguided approaches to getting praise and love, the harder he tries the further they are from his reach.

Adding to that tragedy is that a 180-degree U-turn is still within his reach. He could do it today, and probably get some of what he most deeply wants. But I think the most likely outcome is that he'll keep his current trajectory for the rest of his life.


100% this … He’s a wounded Soul … desperate to be loved and admired. As someone else wrote - there’s a void inside him that can’t be filled.

Yes if only he had the heart/insight to make that 180 U-turn. It’d bring him some peace at last.


> So desperate to be valued and liked, that he desperately grabs at anything and everything to get the acclaim

Like all billionaires, he is an empty void that can never be filled. To borrow a phrase, he is a hungry ghost.

After his first million he needed more, then after a billion he saw that it was not enough, then after becoming president... he is, was, and always will be an empty hole of a person who can never feel satiated and who can consequently never feel genuine happiness.

He is not just a bad person, his is a bad soul.


It's time we take seriously the pathology behind billionaires.

You can't become one as a person with basic empathy. To do so is a moral failing.


Most can't. I would say Warren Buffet was level headed, has empathy, and understood he was a steward of resources.


Earlier I said "all billionaires", and that wasn't fair.

To be clear, there are some who turn Capitalism into a religion (objectivists, and the like), and to them it can be moral. They at least seek to serve a moral good, even if I disagree about the means I can appreciate that their goal is still to make the world a better place.

Trump is not one though. He is utterly devoid of morality and seeks only to fill an endless black need for external validation.


I don’t think he’s interested in general approval. Having a fervent cultish minority support and being detested by others both seem to suit him. Hell, he seems to enjoy being able to paint himself a victimized underdog to his followers.


Interesting reading, but hard to have sympathy when he causes suffering for so many.

I also don't think changing his behavior is within reach. His narcissism prevents him from growth and, like the scorpion in the tale, he can't help but sting.


Thanks. FWIW I wasn't trying to imply that we should have sympathy for him.

My only point was that so much of this suffering, both for himself and others, could be avoided but for his choices and flaws.


I don't think it's so clear cut. The problem is that his personality defects have allowed him to be influenced by people who are truly malevolent. Those people lurk more in the shadows and so avoid the condemnation that they deserve. Trump is their obvious useful idiot with the target painted on his head.


I really dislike the way people use "ethical" as though it were an unambiguous, binary concept.

Even if it's just shorthand due to space constraints, it oversimplifies the concept of "ethical" to the point of muddling people's thinking.


The article seems compelling, but experience tells me to get both sides of a story before judging.

Anyone know if there's a detailed response from NASA to the article?


There’s been plenty of coverage of this issue, and this article discusses some of the changed they made: https://www.space.com/space-exploration/artemis/the-artemis-...

The only thing the author of this blog piece has to offer that’s new is his very strong personal intuition that the new design hasn’t been properly validated, without any engineering explanation about why the testing the performed won’t adequately simulate real world performance.


Their testing procedures failed to predict the char loss before the flight, so they don't seem very reliable.


Yes, the original procedures didn’t find the problem, but it says they were eventually able to duplicate it in the lab and the new material has passed that test.


https://www.nasa.gov/blogs/missions/2026/03/30/nasas-artemis...

"countdown clock started ticking down" "to a targeted launch time of 6:24 p.m. on Wednesday, April 1."


I’m fairly confident NASA doesn’t read Maciej’s blog. However I’m confident that many people there read the Google doc he linked to. I suggest you do too.


While I appreciate independent bloggers, I think that the HackerNews community should expect big claims, like a NASA cover up:

> NASA’s initial instinct was to cover up the problem.

to at least warrant a link.


Does anything in the FTC action prevent users from filing their own class action suit(s)?

(Sincere question, not snark)


I'm wondering if this means 3 million copyright violations that could be litigated in civil court.


Nearly every app that accepts user-generated content includes an agreement that you give them a license to use that content.

It's basically required for those apps to function. No platform would exist very long if users could upload content and then sue the platform for hosting it.

The agreements usually include a clause about allowing them to sub-license it.

So you still retain the copyright to the photos, but you can't sue them for using it.


In this case there was no sublicensing….


> I'm wondering if this means 3 million copyright violations that could be litigated in civil court.

Outstanding observation! Class action suit in the making. Only lawyers get rich, but still could hurt the offenders financially.


Look, I like the occasional $2 checks in the mail. For now, I can buy a candy bar with it.


I have a gift for you: https://openclassactions.com/

You welcome :)


Here in Canada, even a chocolate bar has now gone up to $3 at Walmart


Two for the price of three data breaches!


Good point.

If people are calling this hypocrisy, then I suspect there's a larger moral argument that hasn't been articulated.


> I mean, it's bad, but it's factually not a minefield.

That's not clear. Mines are generally concealed. It's the reason that mine-sweeping is slow and dangerous.

And there's no public information (AFAIK) that let's us rule out mines having been, or even currently being, laid.


The risk of being targeted by missiles or drones works just as well. There is a reason NATO has to patrol the Red Sea with warships.


Once you have enough karma you can flag stories.


You can be shadow banned from flagging and vouching at which point you can still click it but nothing will happen. Not sure if it counts for stories.


Back around 1996, Notes would show hieroglyphics that changed with each new password character.


> There must be a lot of pride and meaning in being run over by Saleforce's money truck.

Worst. Isekai. Idea. Ever.


I had stepped out of the high-rise office into the blinding San Francisco sun, a freshly minted millionaire wrestling with the crushing guilt of sunsetting my own creation. We built a business to be proud of, I tried to tell myself, clutching the signed term sheet. There must be a lot of pride and meaning in this.

That’s when I heard the roar of the engine.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: