Shut Up About the Water
Posted12 days agoActive12 days ago
prettygoodblog.comOtherstory
calmneutral
Debate
40/100
Tech IndustryWater CoolingTech Discussions
Key topics
Tech Industry
Water Cooling
Tech Discussions
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
1h
Peak period
7
1-2h
Avg / period
3
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 28, 2025 at 11:04 AM EST
12 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 28, 2025 at 12:19 PM EST
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
7 comments in 1-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 28, 2025 at 5:22 PM EST
12 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 46412007Type: storyLast synced: 12/28/2025, 6:05:42 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Especially since it starts by complaining about Rob Pike's rant and Rob starts by complaining about the copyright problems as well just as this article claims to dislike.
Poorly thought out and poorly written. By the way, there's no E in "angry".
Copyright is a strange thing to bring up, given I mentioned it not and I couldn't possibly care less about it.
I don't care if you think that a broken clock is right twice a day, that competent, intelligent people aren't wrong all the time, or that people are sometimes able to look past their biases and call out the truth, but dismissing arguments for or against AI just because of who someone gets a paycheck from is wrong.
My viewpoint is similar. Google has done many negative things, and at this point it can easily be argued they have caused net harm. By choosing to remain employed there, Pike tacitly admits he believes that they land on the net positive side.
There is at least as much nuance to AI as a technology, but his level of outrage indicates he is not evaluating it through the lens of trade-offs. His reaction then begs the question: why would he be nuanced in the case of his employer but not in the case of AI? And the answer seems obvious: he profits from Google directly, not AI.
If you reach that conclusion, his words ring pretty hollow.
- You haven't worked in that industry so don't know what you're talking about, so be quiet.
- You worked in the industry that you are now critiquing and benefited from it, so be quiet.