I met John in an Atlanta airport lounge years ago[1]. I recognized him immediately as I've always admired him, and I decided to go up to him and tell him as much. He invited me to sit down, and told him about when I was a teenager in the 90s learning about tech entrepreneurs at the time, I always thought he was pretty cool and had good ideas. I told him I respected him, and that I was sure he'd lived an incredible life and thanked him for his contributions. He was clearly totally sloshed(inebriated) and insisted he called his wife so I could recount the story to her. I did. An hr later I had to leave to catch my flight, and i asked him where he was going - he said I'd find out some "pretty crazy shit" about him next week, and that "the doc was a bunch of BS". Two days later, I read Show Time had announced "Gringo: The Dangerous Life of John McAfee". In the brief time I spent with him, I have to say he had pretty positive energy for someone who was portrayed the way he was.
My interaction with McAfee was in the pre-internet '80s. I was called when a nearby international school got hit by a computer virus spread on floppy disks. Looking for sources of info, found the "Computer Virus Industry Association". Called, got a little bit of generic advice, and he mostly asked me to send sample disks. Turned out that the "CVIA" was basically a pretext of McAfee trolling for people like me to send samples for the anti-virus software he was writing.
Sure, mildly clever ruse, but I always felt that the way it was done was a bit off - could have been more straightforward. I guess he thought people would not help him if he didn't use the pretext.
Somehow the rest of the story does not surprise me. Making his millions seems to have given him no peace either.
I'd argue that making those millions turned his life upside down, made his life drown in hedonism, eventually taking his mind and any shred of dignity. Still, RIP John
The thing about spiralling out of control is that it's both awful and awesome. RIP John Mcafee, one of the rare people who have the balls to really live.
We got McAfee for DOS in the late 1980s, dialed up his BBS for updates. Gave out copies at the college because it was shareware at the time, you buy a registration code.
I think people like that always have positive energy whether feigned or real. It's what attracts people (and money) to them. Famous celebrities, high level execs, politicians that I've met all had similar outward charm.
That, and he was already wealthy by the point the OP ran into him. I’m still poor and every additional dollar I receive increases my happiness immensely. Dollars buy dignity and he had no restraints in life at all financially.
This works less and less as you earn more. At some dozens/dollars a day (I don't even mean homeless, I mean when you pay the rent and only have some crumbs left - I have a lot of experience living this way) every additional dollar makes you happier. As soon as all your basic needs are covered you (I) lose all the emotional interest in money and only feel interested in experiences, free time and increased security.
Umm, no. Plenty of people have outward personas that they can maintain through extreme intoxication.
Guy Burgess was well known when a British diplomat for protracted alcohol binges accompanied by all sorts of poor decision-making, but he never let slip that he was a Soviet spy.
Yes I've met a number of personable people who I completely disagreed with on politics and their actions, as long as you don't challenge their ideological stances. It's kind of like dealing with an alcoholic as long as you don't challenge their addiction everything tends to go well. It happened to me just last night on the phone. The human mind is a complex thing.
Why would you have to agree on politics to like someone? Comparing someones ideologial stance with a severe addiction is pretty messed up, dude. Are you so sure your stance is the absolute right one?
OP didn't specify an ideology, and I think their statement stands for both people holding extreme and non-extreme views if they are held very strongly.
EDIT: I'm no doubt the angry alcoholic archetype who doesn't want to discuss it when my Windows-using friends try and tell me it's better than my Linux setup. Then again, I know my stance is the absolute right one ;)
Running Windows 10 with Ubuntu 20.04 running within WSL, and that all works pretty sweet. Corporate apps and Linux consoles on the same desktop. And yes, command line consoles are the only thing I interact with within Linux.
> Why would you have to agree on politics to like someone?
There are some political stances that also imply a particular moral/ethical stance. I think it'd be pretty normal to not like someone if their morals are incompatible with yours.
Depends on what ideological stance is. I knew people whose ideological stance was that Jews rule the world and are dangerous. Including all the consequences including mild "holocaust was basically necessary". Perfectly charming people, super easy to get along with. Of course, unless you insist on claiming that Jews were treated badly and unfairly. When you oppose them about that specific point, they get quite aggressive.
It is easy to get along with people of various ideological positions, as long as you are willing to nod along, regardless of real world consequences of their ideological stances. As long as their opinion is the one ever said out loud.
I have found many people (though not most) can be fine and pleasant even when you directly challenge their ideologies. But that is only assuming you do so in a respectful manner. In fact most of my best friends have different stances and we often regularly challenge them in discussion.
What I have noticed in recent years is that people increasingly have little respect for those they disagree with and it’s largely on the basis of that disagreement.
Realise that people can be super nice to you and cruel/evil to somebody else. The serial killer living next door might be a great neighbour. That doesn’t change the facts of what he/she is.
In fact, this is what they mean when they say it's almost impossible to know who the real sociopaths are. The true ones are so charismatic and good at manipulation that, unless you are extraordinarily close to them or get on their bad side, they just seem like the sort of person that everyone likes.
Interestingly, a minority of people seem to be somewhat able to see through the facade. I have ADHD and a brother who's very nearly on the autism spectrum, and both of those conditions seem correlated with this ability to have an unbiased sense of a person. Perhaps it's due to the way we are slightly detached from normal social interactions, or the highly analytical way our brains function. All I know is that there are definitely times I feel this. For instance, if you look online, there are tons of relatively recent videos that have special forces types (SEALS, rangers, etc.) commenting on movie scenes or so on. The comments are always full of people talking about how they seem like such a great person, or how funny/charming/positive/etc. this person is. Meanwhile, I just come away with this feeling of being very deeply unsettled by them almost every time. Everything about their demeanor unsettles me. Now I'm in no way saying every special forces operator is a closet sociopath. But the job does attract a certain personality type, and many of the ones on these videos are the most charismatic of the whole bunch.
Back on topic, John always seemed to be to be a pretty typical narcissist to me. He did some stuff that I found to be funny in kind of a black humor sense (that video of him supposedly telling you how to uninstall McAfee antivirus), but the idea that he was a truly positive person I just totally don't see. I mean, think about it -- the OP's story involves John having the guy call his wife and tell him how great he thought John was and how great his ideas were. That's pretty typical narcissistic behavior.
Always though ADHD was not about being able to have unbiased sense of a person. Instead much more about the inability to interact and be perceptive about the world and
persons around you.
Hyper focus is a benefit of ADHD. It just has to be interesting.
I couldn’t read people in teens. In 20s I decided to change that. Would stare intently at a person face and watch every muscle movement, tone, etc. read some books on body language.
Was absurdly exhausting for me. But I got very good at reading people. Eventually it went from intense analytical analysis to just “normal” paying attention.
Might be true, but it's complicated by mental illness being defined in terms of ability to participate in society. This includes various deeply irrational behaviours.
I have to disagree about your veteran assessment. Almost a decade ago I accidentally got into the security integration industry (security cameras, gates and the software that runs all of it). That field attracts a lot of veterans, especially the higher echelon guys. I've got to know plenty of folks from the enlisted and up to a full bird. The thing with anyone from one of those specialty combat mission backgrounds, they're typically extremely grounded people. As in, do you remember being a teen or young adult before getting into a career field? You had all these folks blowing smoke up your ass about how great something is in that field. The whole unicorn, sunshine and rainbows about a job field. Then you always had one dude who was, "nah, that's like 10% of the job. 90% of the time it's like this." When you're young, you think the person with actual experience, the salty guy, is a party pooper jackass. When you're older, you realize that guy was leveling your expectations, warning you of pitfalls and trying to make you look out for the good and how to cherish it. Combat vets are kind of the same way. There's a good chance any moral or ethical theory people armchair postulate about when it comes to society... they saw the extremes actually played out in real life with consequences. Those that readjusted back to civvy life well have the best attitude towards life. They try living life to the fullest because, again, they've seen first hand how short and fragile life is. They dont sugarcoat it either, which I think is what a majority of people find so jarring. The amount of sugarcoating in general society is amazing when you see the contrast. The charisma they exude isnt really the sociopath, snakeoil salesman kind. It's far more worldly and more honest, mixed with zero fucks given what you think of them. That sugarless honesty is what most people, especially these days, are attracted to. But then it can come off as crazy because of how much it contrasts with "normal" bullshit. They're the most egalitarian and welcoming "demographics" I've ever met. On a whole, the tech industry is full of far more actual sociopathic and narcissistic assholes.
"Former Special Forces capitalizing on it to garner a Youtube following" is a very small and specific subset of Veteran. The GP post wasn't making a generalized statement about combat vets.
GP was even very careful to concede that the traits they think they've observed aren't necessarily a strong proportion of that specific niche.
It's a slippery slope tbh, you can end up suspicious of everyone, thinking everyone nice is actually a sociopath, when in fact there's nothing sinister under the surface.
Not to mention that people on the spectrum who are trying hard to show emotions appropriate to a situation end up seeming just as unsettling.
This kind of subjectivism is so lacking in nuance, though, that the good parts that one is seeing (and, in many ways, choosing to see) are a mere reduction of the whole truth, and isn’t the whole truth of a person
So a serial killer is a good person just because he’s a nice neighbor to you? If you’re hanging out with a friend in your inner circle of elites and that friend is nice to you but is very rude to waiters and other blue-collar workers, is that friend a good person?
I’m not making a judgment of McAfee’s character here, just pointing out the myopic sense of morality. It’s so popular, too popular if I must say, among people these days.
Sloshed is a weird word. It means drunk but if you go through etymology, it started at slush and moved to slosh which was to splash around in slush. Then somewhere along the lines, 'slosh' meant to pour without care and make a mess. That turned into pour alcohol carelessly and become a mess.
Where I grew up in Scotland, sloshed very specifically meant you couldn't pour the booze straight anymore, more than just a bit drunk. However, it's also considered somewhat polite, I thought... more appropriate when speaking of the dead.
Hey friend, honestly thanks. That’s how my Grandma Beatrice used the term sloshed - her family came over from Glasgow and she inherited that phrase from her Dad. It’s hard to convey but it was always said with love. It was more gentle teasing than an accusation?
Seriously though, thanks for this memory. My Gram and I were very very close.
Five other hits in the entire Google corpus, all of which are the same use from 1921. It's so uncommon it's literally a shibboleth until you ruined it.
A healthy paranoia if you grew up with the internet.
When a link can compromise an entire machine, having a machine you can literally throw away with no consequence is nice.
Hell, I'd wager to say that containers wouldn't be a thing if it weren't for this kind of behavior. Looking for ways to build up and destroy VMs even faster.
Windows 10 pro let’s you bring up fresh sandbox with one click and about 5 seconds to boot, it’s really not such a burden.
Or maybe people just have temp VMs running anyway, and like others have said, if you’re browsing hacker news on your work machine you should probably do so with a healthy dose of paranoia.
[1] https://i.imgur.com/qThvR2S.jpg