https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=a...
Reuters leaves out that both law firms representing his sister retracted from the case, by themselves. When asked for comment, they basically said in lawyer speak that they lost all trust in their client.
She claims she has been abused between 1997 (Sam, 12; Annie, 3) and 2006 (Sam, 21; Annie, 12).
There are two younger brothers in the family as well. Plus the parents, who are a dermatologist and a real estate agent.
So there are either two possibilities.
neither the younger brothers, nor the father or the mother, who is a dermatologist and can see the difference between a bruise on one of her kids from hitting something like an idiot, or a fistpunch, or grabbing onto someone, have spotted any signs of sexual abuse for 9 years.
Or they are all in on it and the Altmans are the Incest Rockefellers.
Unfortunately for the tabloids, the simple answer is most likely the right one.
Both his brothers, just like Altman himself live in stable living circumstances.
According to her Instagram, his sister is an artist, entertainer, and author. A not very successful one.
It’s ok to be a dreamer, my better half is one, but if you ever lived with someone that says of themselves they are an artist, entertainer, or author, you’d know that they are very prone to mental health issues, successful or not.
If you don’t believe me, just pull up that picture of Ben Affleck having a smoke outside after going for a second rodeo with J.Lo. If you know, you know.
I think it’s a price that comes with having a very vivid mind and strong emotional feelings.
Unfortunately, these kinds of people always create a mess when they go off the beaten path, because they are very expressive in nature. If you look at her Instagram, you can see what I mean.
A reasonable mind should come to the conclusion that there is a lot more pointing into the direction that what the family states is closer to the truth than what his sister states. The rest is for a judge and jury to decide.
If she continues this even after two law firms retracting, I doubt she will stop before she’ll lose this case.
And that’s also an indicator that she might not be able to differentiate any longer that what she believes is real, is not reality.
If two different car mechanics tell you you will not survive if you take this sports car on the highway one more time and you go yolo, I know it better than the experts, you don’t need to wonder if you wake up in the ICU without legs and suffer the consequences of your own actions. Causality is a bitch.
And you think there isn't the possibility that the parents and other siblings are covering for their billionaire son, or simply in denial about it? It's not unique to the wealthy even, many families don't believe victims when the offender is from within the family, it's why many of these cases go unreported for years.
And you don't think there could be any link between her mental health issues and her being raped as a child?
Sam is a proven sociopath, compulsive liar and manipulator, I have absolutely 0 issues believing he'd kill or rape someone, even a family member
> Sam is a proven sociopath, compulsive liar and manipulator. I have absolutely 0 issues believing he'd kill or rape someone, even a family member.
You are heavily biased, and that makes you construct evidence in your head, that makes it more believable to you that he did what you already are convinced of that he did.
You start with, is there the possibility they are covering for their billionaire son? Sure.
But why, and how would they benefit from that? They all have their own things going and don’t need their brother’s /son’s money.
I also doubt Sam and Annie were indifferent to their parents. She’s the only daughter, mothers are usually very protective of younger kids who are the minority gender in the household, especially in a household full of boys.
They also supported her financially way past maturity, just like they supported their sons. If she was a nuisance, or even a risk, why not just make a hard cut when she’s old enough to live on her own and isolate her?
If you accept sexual abuse in your household for one single kid specifically, isn’t it very unusual to offer that level of support to someone you seem to hate and/or really don’t care for their mental and physical health as a parent?
These are educated people, no methheads.
Then you add another link to the chain and say, well, if they don’t do it on purpose, then they must be in denial he did it.
If it’s not that either, well then the mental health issues must be from being raped as a child.
I am confident you have a bunch more of what you think are valid arguments, but those will also not be anchored in reality.
You’re free to believe whatever you want, even that jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams. Just doesn’t mean it’s true.
Think for a second, how often is the simple answer the right one, and how many times were the conspiracy theorists right?
Flippant about self-annihilation / extinction. What possible indicator could be more explicit that someone is NOT NORMAL?
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/04/13/sam-altman-may...
combine that with the fact that nearly every single person interviewed for the NYT profile on him said he is a liar...
For me, that is enough reason to take the allegations seriously. They are commensurate with what is plainly observable about him.
Undoubtedly this news won't see the light of day on HN, but I guess we'll see.
I know a while back you said that one of the central rules of HN is that you moderate less not more when the discussion is about Y Combinator or a Y Combinator startup.
Does this rule apply to OpenAI? After all OpenAI is probably Y Combinator’s most successful startup. And does this rule apply to Sam Altman? After all he was once the CEO of Y Combinator. And he’s currently a CEO of a Y Combinator startup.
I know you’ve also said that moderating less isn’t the same as not moderating at all. So this comment isn’t necessarily about this specific exchange. Just asking in general…
Perhaps just EVIL? Very curious to hear what you come up with.
By the way it is interesting how often hacker news's editorial staff uses language policing to hide commentary against a specific set of people who have been involved in YC. Not lost on anyone here, certainly not me.
Let me ask you this - to put a fine point on your policy - under what circumstances would discussion of psychotic behaviors (not pretenses to a person's diagnosis but discussion of behaviors as psychotic or possibly indicative of psychosis or other forms of insanity) be permitted?
Because if your rule is a blanket rule that all such discussion is illegal here, then you have created a safe haven where the most destructive personalities in the world are the most protected here. And they just happen to be people your employer is directly invested in and bound to. Hm.
Do you see the problem?
I think it's pretty obvious that the policies may be constructed to appear neutral, and perhaps they were conceived that way, but structurally and materially what they do is prevent and downright squash legitimate dissent, evaluation, and critique of horrible things happening in this world, of which YC is a part. I would very much like to see that truth acknowledged or the policy amended to prevent the deliberate silencing of fair critique of people like Altman.
If your attitude toward this issue is that the language policing supercedes this concern, then that is tantamount to an admission of being part of the oligarchy's apparatus and, in whatever small way, hacker news has become an arm of the fascist regime. (I suspect this is the case but I invite a direct response.)