Here you have two powerful companies, Wolfram and loopt. Google has interests in technologies similar to what these two companies offer. They didn't buy/license loopt's technology, so why should they buy/license Alpha? There is no basis for what rms said.
1. Google is coming out with a new product called Google Squared. It's related to searching data sets.
2. Wolfram is coming out with a new product called Wolfram Alpha. It's related to searching data sets.
3. rms observed that #1->product and #2->product are related, and if their technology doesn't explicitly overlap, WA might be a good candidate for acquisition in order to broaden Google's hold on searching data sets.
4. You issued a non-sequitur. It's not related to the thread at hand, and I'm not even sure why Google would even want Loopt. (Please explain your rationale why Google would want Loopt, cuz I don't get it, but know that explaining it won't strengthen your argument against rms).
5. Sparknotes Version-- Your argument is this:
Google didn't license Y's technology.
Y's technology is from a powerful company
*Therefore, Google won't license X's technology, since X is a powerful company.
6. What you're trying to say is that Google won't necessarily go around trying to license technology from every company that has intersecting interests.
I'm not making such an argument as you are claiming. My argument is that it is absurd to make an assertion without a basis. The assertion about loopt was such an assertion.
(To satisfy your model:
1. Google is coming out with a new product called latitude. It is related to finding people around you.
2. loopt has a product called loopt. It is related to finding people around you.
3. rms observed that #1->product and #2->product are related, and if their technology doesn't explicitly overlap, loopt might be a good candidate for acquisition in order to broaden Google's hold on finding people around you.)
First, the emphasis was on the lack of a basis for the comment. But to answer your question, it depends on whether you think something that may be borderline absurdity adds some kind of value to others:
I knew when I wrote that it would probably be received poorly; indeed, it was volatile. But it was creative, and there was some truth to it.
HN is too simplistic. I would venture to say it ultimately doesn't work, with evidence in responses like "Pot, socially" being #2 in the top comments under lists. HN is fun to experiment with, though.
