What was the impressive and profitable part? The article makes him sound like a script kiddie who dicked around with some DDoS networks and formed a couple LLCs but didn't end up accomplishing much (either entrepreneurially or illegally). Not saying that makes him a terrible person, but in generation ago terms, he sounds less like a founding l0pht member and more like a Rusty n Edie's subscriber.
In context, I read that as describing the future he could have had in brighter terms to increase the contrast with the following description of the future he probably has. Like, being generous because it doesn't matter now anyway.
He's got enough hustle to get funded by a16z to build yet another blockchain scam if he so chose. You better believe he's siphoning your government records to use for his own purposes later. Ask for forgiveness, not for permission, as they say; but with this government, you don't even need to ask for forgiveness.
I do not find it impressive. It is not difficult technically. The reason others do not do this is that they have ethical and moral limitations, they wont DDoS networks because they are aware of harm. Maybe we should stop treating people who cause intentional harm as superior.
Not opening LLCs you do not know what to do with is also more of "good impulse control" sign.
Well, becoming a titan in tech industry hasn't required doing any difficult tech since... idk, at least the 1990s. Tech is just business now, and being a business titan requires a different particular set of skills, skills this guy apparently has.
He is not titan in tech industry nor on the path there. Your typical script kiddy does not become tech titan. What it takes to be tech titan is actually irrelevant to whether DDoS is impressive.
> being a business titan requires a different particular set of skills, skills this guy apparently has.
Just about the only thing he has is lack of ethics and morals. Lack of care for harm he causes. Yes, those are necessary to be a tech titan, but not nearly sufficient.
There are many low level guys without much ethics that never ever become tech titans.
You have a point. Way back when digital presence was still something new, I remember entertaining the idea of running an org that would fake reviews on Amazon and other spaces, but I dropped the idea, because it seemed unethical. I will never know what could have been, but I also know there were people who followed that path.
To your point, as a society, we have an actual filter for people like that, but that filter was not been uniformly applied.
Can you clarify what you meant? From reading the article I gathered that his attempts to start a business didn’t produce anything and his attempt to join someone else’s company resulted quickly in him getting fired for leaking private info to a competitor.
That last point is extremely alarming for someone who was just given access to core government data. Any adversaries looking for an insider to corrupt are definitely taking note.
> Coristine wrote impressive, profitable tech. He should have a future as a productive member of society, perhaps even one of its titans.
When did "profitable" become the sole metric by which we judge someone's work? Does what is morally correct factor into it at all, or should the impressiveness someone's accomplishments make them a "titan" regardless of intent or outcome?
> should the impressiveness someone's accomplishments make them a "titan" regardless of intent or outcome?
For a teenager? Barring violence, yes. An impressive, misguided teenager is a net asset to a community and society in the developed world.
I challenge anyone intelligent to honestly say they didn’t have any really stupid opinions or worldviews before their prefrontal cortex had finished developing.
I certainly didn't say anything akin to the recent racist tweets from another Doge staffer, no.
There's also a very large unspoken piece left out of your sentence, which is that they are an asset if taught and guided well. Do you think Musk is likely to do that, or to instead encourage careless "technically impressive and profitable" behavior without regard to ethics or morals?
> certainly didn't say anything akin to the recent racist tweets from another Doge staffer, no
Were you on Twitter?
I don’t remember anything that heinous. But I do remember telling off-colour jokes. If I’d done that in public and received validation from someone I respected and admired, is it implausible I’d have gone down the rabbit hole?
> unspoken piece left out of your sentence, which is that they are an asset if taught and guided well
That’s my point. These kids show potential. It’s being squandered for the short-term gains of old men.
> He should have a future as a productive member of society, perhaps even one of its titans
...did we read the same article? It sounds like he was a failed script kiddie that registered some vanity domains, had exactly one job that he was promptly fired form.
Where are you setting the bar for "deserves to be a titan of society"?
> Instead, he’s going to spend his years in some combination of hearings, court rooms and jails.
It is super possible none of those are in his future. Trumps administration wont pursue him and whatever remains after them will likely ignore this kid. I mean, it would be fair and great if these all got some kind of punishment, but it is unlikely to ever happen.
> DOGE, at a smaller scale in every respect, reminds one of the arrogance of Europe’s WWI leaders.
What exactly you mean there? This does not strikes me as similar to WWI.
You really think so? How about the alternative being he's fully pardoned of anything that might be brought against him and coasts to billionaire status by launching companies and having his funding rounds and paths to exits secured now that he's an absolute NRx legend with the full backing of Thiel and Musk?
Being fully pardoned assumes that he and/or Musk do not end up annoying Trump enough that he'd rather burn them. Franky even Musk should be concerned given how easy it is to get on the wrong side of Trump, but anyone involved in this relying on Musk being prepared to risk political capital shielding them if something goes wrong should be terrified and working on escape plans.
Musk pledged $45 million per month in donations to help Trump win a second term[1], he won't have done that for nothing. He owns Twitter, the social network the President uses to talk to millions of followers, another big donor was Palantir owned by Peter Thiel who was key Trump advisor last administration[2]. I've seen people on Reddit praising Musk for "uncovering billions of dollars of wasted money already" so he has political capital for himself and Trump already from his DOGE actions.
We've seen Trump dismiss people before, sure, but we've known for years that the administration has been pre-vetting people as Trump loyalists[3], planning who will become head of what department and why, which executive orders to move on right at the start of the presidency. This suggests Musk is not a casual appointment and advisers will advise Trump not to dismiss him casually.
And, apart from literal death, what does he have to fear with hundreds of billions and two companies to fall back on? For all my criticism I am not expecting Trump to pull a full Putin, confiscate X, SpaceX and Tesla and send Musk to Camp Guantanmo or have him die by falling out a window. Are you?
[3] this was 2023: https://www.axios.com/2023/11/13/trump-loyalists-2024-presid... "Hundreds of people are spending tens of millions of dollars to install a pre-vetted, pro-Trump army of up to 54,000 loyalists across government to rip off the restraints imposed on the previous 46 presidents. The screening for ready-to-serve loyalists has already begun, driven in part by artificial intelligence from tech giant Oracle, contracted for the project."
> what does he have to fear with hundreds of billions and two companies to fall back on?
Not having those anymore. With the new emergency powers Trump has claimed, he could shut down every company of Musk’s except X. Depending on how bad the breakup is, that could be on the table. Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Wouldn't that be disastrous PR for all companies and investors? Especially when this administration campaigned on unleashing American energy and economic productivity. To send the message that your company can be taken from you if you annoy the President and nothing - wealth, public adoration, providing jobs in multiple states - can save you.
Just thinking of Musk's behaviour, if he felt that was a real possibility wouldn't he be walking on eggshells? Instead he acts like he feels untouchable.
You're assuming that not just one of them, but both of them, will be acting rationally. There's plenty of evidence to suggest both of them are capable of acting extremely irrationally.
