Thiel named his security agency Palantir and calls everyone who criticizes him the antichrist, his group misses the point constantly.

The philosophy of HPMoR is genuinely contemptible though, even if it's not quite as bad as the Dark Enlightenment dorks

I did like certain elements, and I am still amused to this day that the guy managed to crowdsource his ending to a group of "critical thinkers" without any of them catching on.

I was introduced to Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality by the Behind the Bastards episodes on the Zizians. Or, I should say, reintroduced. I had previously been on a bit of a fanfic binge and stumbled across it. I got a little way through and stopped because (1) it was deeply boring and (2) it was deeply strange.

Just the Wikipedia one. I absolutely admit that not having read the source material (and that the synopsis is crowd sourced and easily could be written through the lens of someone seeing what they want to see) I can't make a real assement.

But yes, death is the ultimate enemy... But, given the synopsis that appears to "rationally" entail that as such, any means justify the ends, and that if you accept the fantasy of a mechanic for resurrection then that gives broad latitude for moral justification for pretty much anything. Even one step further, a moral obligation to do pretty much anything.

I'd argue that Dr. Soran couldn't delineate the fantasy afforded by the nexus from reality: whomever he killed could be conjured back by him in the nexus. The problematic actions could be "morally deferred".

Regardless of any interpretation of the material, I (like Picard) reject the premise that death is the ultimate enemy. And, like Picard, I am very uneasy with any philosophy that claims to have simple derivable moral evaluations, especially if when you pull back the curtain the underlying mechanics boil down to "the ends justify the means".

If these dont apply to the source, then it was a bad synopsis. Or It was a good synopsis and I'm bad at reading.