3 ms·

Adding the last part of the story ---- Chang left his first day of work feeling uneasy. He called Duplan that evening to share his reservations. The conversat

Adding the last part of the story ---- Chang left his first day of work feeling uneasy. He called Duplan that evening to share his reservations. The conversation lasted well into the night. The next morning, Chang told Duplan he wouldn’t be coming back to the office. He left a long list of recommendations about how to launch Clinkle, then they parted ways amicably. Of course, the only person who really knows why Chang left is Chang himself. When reached for comment, Chang declined to elaborate, stating simply, “Lucas is one of the most impressive people I have ever met. I believe he will lead Clinkle to a successful outcome and I wish them the best.” ---- The comment at the end interests me. Does McCarthy and Duplan have enough connections to make Chang's life hell? Or is it that if Chang says the truth ( Duplan is duplicitous ) would that alone make prospective employers look down on him? Perhaps both.

jakejake 11y ago
Most likely it's just that Chang has enough class and good sense to not bad-mouth a former employer publicly.
- hitekker 11y ago
  I believe it would be just a matter a class if Chang had said nothing. The Theranos article posted yesterday had oodles of that. He decided to say nice things, however, which to me, means he wishes to reduce his association with failure by reducing Clinkle's failure. Interestingly, when I was going through the history of Clinkle, I saw one person who was ostensibly there for a very long time write:" "without a product" is not at all an accurate reflection of the state of things (as the TechCrunch article and plenty of other sources can corroborate)." This was contradicted by the very same TechCrunch article which asserted that they had no app, let alone product for a very long period of time: "Still, there was no app, and Shontell reported that contributed to internal turmoil." I see a pattern between the words of Chang and this commenter, which is that if a person invests considerable resources in a venture that fails, they'll do everything in their capacity to make it sound right in their head. Even if that entails making it sound right in the public sphere. I would be hard pressed to do differently in the same position.

jakejake 11y ago

Most likely it's just that Chang has enough class and good sense to not bad-mouth a former employer publicly.

hitekker 11y ago
I believe it would be just a matter a class if Chang had said nothing. The Theranos article posted yesterday had oodles of that. He decided to say nice things, however, which to me, means he wishes to reduce his association with failure by reducing Clinkle's failure. Interestingly, when I was going through the history of Clinkle, I saw one person who was ostensibly there for a very long time write:" "without a product" is not at all an accurate reflection of the state of things (as the TechCrunch article and plenty of other sources can corroborate)." This was contradicted by the very same TechCrunch article which asserted that they had no app, let alone product for a very long period of time: "Still, there was no app, and Shontell reported that contributed to internal turmoil." I see a pattern between the words of Chang and this commenter, which is that if a person invests considerable resources in a venture that fails, they'll do everything in their capacity to make it sound right in their head. Even if that entails making it sound right in the public sphere. I would be hard pressed to do differently in the same position.