Oh absolutely. I take a tech-optimist appraoch when discussing new technologies, because the alternative is that everyone outside of the 1% dies in less than 20 years. That seems boring to discuss to me, especially since while i may be a techno-optimist, im also a political-realist. Hence I can see that no one (escept luigi) is actually going to do anything impactful before we all die, so there just doesnt seem to be much point in discussing it. But maybe im wrong, maybe someone will finally decide that maybe we shouldnt be allowing evil people to run the world. In that case the techno-optimist route seems more likely!

Edit: premptive little thought experiment for anyone wanting to disagree. Take whatever counter point you are about to make, and then ask what the results of that "good action" actually were. Likely a lot of nothing, regaurdless of how well intentioned it may have been. Trump is still president after all, and were still just as fucked. The same could be argued about luigi, it doesnt actually seem he achieved much. But hey, he did in fact get rid of one problem directly at the source, which is more than can be said for anyone else in the modern era afaik.