←back to thread

Alan Kay has agreed to do an AMA today

1401 points alankay | 6 comments | 20 Jun 16 18:04 UTC | HN request time: 1.032s | source | bottom

This request originated via recent discussions on HN, and the forming of HARC! at YC Research. I'll be around for most of the day today (though the early evening).
Show context
olantonan ◴[20 Jun 16 19:11 UTC] No.11940499[source]▶
Reddit commenter implying this AMA is fake. How are HN accounts verified? How do we know this is a real AMA? Just curious.
replies(2): >>11940555 #>>11940558 #
dang ◴[20 Jun 16 19:17 UTC] No.11940555[source]▶
I personally vouch that this isn't fake. (But anyone familiar with Alan's work could tell that just from reading his comments here—who could possibly fake these?)

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11940227 and marked it off-topic.

replies(1): >>11940605 #
olantonan ◴[20 Jun 16 19:22 UTC] No.11940605[source]▶
"who could possibly fake these?"

Copying from other sources. I'm not saying it's fake, just curious about verification as someone claimed so.

For instance, your "vouch", are you an official HN account. How can I tell?

replies(2): >>11940646 #>>11941706 #
1. BrutallyHonest ◴[20 Jun 16 21:25 UTC] No.11941706[source]▶
If an answer could be confused with a "real" one then it's as good.
replies(3): >>11941759 #>>11943006 #>>11943008 #
2. olantonan ◴[20 Jun 16 21:34 UTC] No.11941759[source]▶
No
replies(1): >>11942246 #
3. coldtea ◴[20 Jun 16 22:52 UTC] No.11942246[source]▶
That's an ongoing issue in philosophy though -- you can't just say "no" as if it's a solved issue.
replies(1): >>11944260 #
4. ◴[21 Jun 16 01:59 UTC] No.11943006[source]▶
5. Retra ◴[21 Jun 16 02:00 UTC] No.11943008[source]▶
This is assuming the real one wouldn't have articulated anything unique and contextually valuable. (Unless you've got some sure-fire method to determine which statements are objectively so and that's what's getting confused.)
6. olantonan ◴[21 Jun 16 08:14 UTC] No.11944260{3}[source]▶
Yes