I guess lots of people find
him interesting (see HN guidelines)
Charlie (and Buffett) are often recommended here for their mental models as their approach to investing and finance are very transferrable in startups/engineering. At the end of the day, large scale software engineering is mostly about managing risk, strategy, and corporate finance/value. Often, Poor Charlie's Almanack is recommended by my top Staff+ colleagues.
Every now and then the mask fully slips and you see how many users here really think. Munger was famously anti modern tech and even called the internet a "net negative" for capitalism at one point in 2000, but it doesn't matter because he was rich. Also he made so much money that all the comments where he praised a brutal dictatorship are apparently no big deal, for example for cracking down on Jack Ma who dared to mildly criticise Xi's leadership.
Everything for that share price, Chinese people don't need human rights anyway.
I really liked Charlie. His stance on China was wrong. People aren’t black and white. It’s a tragically small and uninteresting world if you can only learn from and admire people who never make a wrong step and who only ever agree with you.
i think it does matter. Also let me take a minute to disconnect the person - which anyone dying even at this age is tragic - from the persona that many people here seem to worship. Personally I don't think that he was a net positive for the hackers that are still around here but I may be wrong.
Interesting observation. I agree, seems like people, especially so called "hackers", don't want to follow the threads and externalities of these people as far down the causal chain as they would with say, I don't know, starfish reproduction or some other curio. To me, it seems like the most fertile ground for the awareness that billionaires aren't in a vacuum, that fundamentally greedy decisions make our planet worse off..reality has a complexity bias, and it doesn't take much to realize how much harm these people have caused.