3 ms·

How about judging someone based on what they've done, rather than making idle speculation from their Wikipedia page? Sometimes the cynicism in this place is dep

• vex 10y ago
  Really? Because I feel like the comment sections here are usually people being positive and agreeing with each other, while dissenting opinions are silenced.
  • argonaut 10y ago
    The truth of the matter is that there are certain topics that heavily follow the HN hivemind, and there are certain topics that are highly polarized and endlessly debated. Hivemind example: remote work is good and companies that refuse to do it are stupid. Endlessly debated example: college degrees are useless.
    • laxatives 10y ago
      Comments that disparage YC companies are often quickly hidden or buried as well.
      • argonaut 10y ago
        I disagree. In fact, the topic of whether or not HN is biased towards YC / favors YC falls into the endlessly debated category.
• untilHellbanned 10y ago
  I asked what has he done. Considering how high profile this job is, a Wikipedia page in 2016 should make this obvious. In his case, it's decidedly not clear so I asked the question.
  • dang 10y ago
    Yes, if you rephrase what you said in a way that takes out the nasty bits, it becomes less objectionable. When commenting on HN, though, that's what you should do in the first place.
    • untilHellbanned 10y ago
      Please rephrase my question in an HN appropriate way. I'm curious about how you can make "what kind of talent" and "cronyism" less nasty. Here's my attempt: "Why did Ito get this job? His Wikipedia page makes it seems like connections rather than skill was important." IMO this latter attempt is boring and will lead to decreased engagement on HN over time compared with my more provocative original comment.