There's a guideline about this, at least in spirit:
Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data.
If you feel so strongly about it, email the mods with your suspicions. Repeatedly posting this kind of thing, based on effectively nothing at all (lots of people write general audience articles without indexing every bit of research they've done) is just lame and rude. You owe the author an apology.
No, I don't owe him anything, and it is not "based on nothing" -- it's based on its being a piece with no original reporting. And he says "out of print" as if to excuse the lack of any content from those books.
And as for "without indexing every bit of research they've done" is just gaslighting, or something. How about anything that a casual web search wouldn't turn up?
Absolutely none of this supports your accusation that this was 'generated by AI'. It's a completely unfounded aspersion. It's a little rich to be reaching for 'gaslighting' when you just made something up about an article and keep repeating it.
I talk about sources in the piece. I own Osborne's books. The only picture in it is one that's credited to me, a photo of my personal copy of Hypergrowth. I have done interviews with people who knew him. I quote a number of people who did. I've spent many years trawling old issues of Byte, Infoworld and more on this era (because a lot of this stuff outside of the common Apple/Microsoft narrative is obscure or badly covered in modern books - if at all).
I don't know why AlbertCory reacted that way to your article, but I loved it. One correction: Pournelle showing off the Osborne to others covering the Voyager encounter with Saturn occurred at Caltech, not at NASA's DC HQ.
