a) purely factual
b) not supportive
Uh, what on earth would count as explicitly supportive language?
In other words, he's basically saying Sam is the best in the world at being a ruthless mofo in these situations and obliterating those who oppose him. "Admiring language", perhaps, but I wouldn't really call that "supportive language".
Exactly, it's not all that subtle, so I find it hard to even come up with an alternative interpretation.
What would count?
“I think Roy Sullivan is the man to be struck an eighth time. He’s the best at it. I hope he succeeds.”
When the fact is subjective to begin with?
I would even say “Roy Sullivan is the best in the world at being struck by lightning” is not a fact at all but an opinion.
And by giving an opinion you are passing judgement.
How can you claim saying something such as "Washington was the best president" is in some way a fact? Can you find it in reference books? Is it defined from the laws of nature? Does anyone even believe my quote?
Not saying pg is doing this, of course.
Acknowledging it does not mean supporting the person. It is just a factual statement.
Even Adolf Hitler was good at certain things like manipulating masses of people. Saying this absolutely does not mean I support Hitler. It is just a factual statement.
More to the point, some people are natural leaders, they can process many stressful complex situations in parallel without breaking a sweat. I know I can't, not long term, all the kudos to them.
At least some of them are also amoral a-holes, highly functioning sociopaths (these get more common the more power and money floats around till they become the norm).
Probably not true? It seems like Russia could use another Yeltsin (or Gorbachev) more than Putin for its current situation.
This is clearly entirely subjective. To prove otherwise, feel free to show me the list ranking how people in the world would deal with this kind of situation and explain why Sam Altman ends up on top of that list.
