4 ms·
This article is made up of 95% fluff and 4% content, and 1% the word "Keynesian". And even that 4% content has no logic, just trying to deceive readers using l
by galistoca 10y ago
This article is made up of 95% fluff and 4% content, and 1% the word "Keynesian".
And even that 4% content has no logic, just trying to deceive readers using lots of confusing/dubious expressions.
"Since then I’ve gotten a college degree, come within striking distance of finishing grad school, and acquired a number of practical and social skills I simply didn’t have as a teenager."
> So basically if you trim it down it means "I became and adult and went to college". (I had to re-read to realize "come within striking distance of finishing grad school" means nothing. "Acquired a number of ..." also means nothing because that's the definition of growing up. I acquired number of practical and social skills too. And so did everyone else.)
As for the content itself, this person needs to learn a lot more than some esoteric economics theory books and some blog posts about startups, before criticizing how startups work. It's all based on shallow understanding of how things work.
- djscram 10y agoDamn. I gave up after three paragraphs of fluff. I would have stuck with it longer if I had known there was a Keynesian buried in there somewhere.
- cjcenizal 10y agoYou're not offering a counterpoint. Try adding something constructive to the conversation.
- galistoca 10y agoI normally do when I comment on HN. But honestly there's nothing to "counter" because like I said there's no substance to the article. I could criticize all the little details but that also doesn't feel right. It would be like a professor trying to grade a student's report and having no idea where to start because it's just a long rambling about nothing and has nothing to do with the suggested topic. In these cases they will just say "Rewrite".
- SyneRyder 10y agoIt needs more than a rewrite. The author has misspelled Entrpreneurship (sic) in the title itself. I usually try to look past typos, but that one (and the others sprinkled throughout) make it difficult for me to take it seriously.
- golergka 10y agoPointing out errors is constructive as it makes us less wrong.
- cronjobber 10y agoIf the only valid way to reject an erroneous mathematical theorem was to offer a valid one to replace it, mathematics today probably would be stuck in an unnavigable quagmire of he-said she-said. Fortunately, mathematicians managed to reject the rhetorical approach to truth-finding. Will the rest of us follow?
- dang 10y agoHN threads are casual conversation, which is as far from mathematics as you can get.
- EpicEng 10y agoWhat is the counterpoint to pure fluff? It's enough to call it like it is and move on.
- nothrabannosir 10y agoI love comments like this because it saves from wasting time reading the article. it is the reason I check the comments before reading the article. That's valuable to me.