4 ms·
To be fair, that doesn't imply that Mr. Someone is merely claiming so out of self-interest. If he started a company to compete with the technology, he must rea
by pg 17y ago
To be fair, that doesn't imply that Mr. Someone is merely claiming so out of self-interest. If he started a company to compete with the technology, he must really believe it's going to die.
Which means you can't simply dismiss his statements; you have to look into them and judge them on their merits.
It's a bad sign for HN that this facile dismissal has (as of this writing) twice as many points as this much deeper but also critical analysis:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1332039 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1332039
- matwood 17y agoExactly. It's best to assume everyone is biased and judge arguments on their merit and not on who is delivering it.
- davidw 17y agoIt would be interesting to analyze, over time, the relative points of the first several "root" comments.
- reitzensteinm 17y agoActually, I think in the hypothetical case it would be fair to write what Mr. Someone is saying off as FUD, and ignore them, unless false negatives are of serious consequence (eg, you're an investor). Self interest aside, it's such a trollish statement that adds nothing to the real discussion, which is a) what's wrong with product x, and b) what my product y does to fix this. Such behaviour correlates reasonably strongly with incompetence, at least in my experience. My problem with the grandparent post is more that the question was actually posed by a journalist, which is night and day different. They're sexing up the content to sell a story. So reframing the quote as being from the Clustrix guys is quite dishonest. Had the quote actually been theirs, I'd have no problem laughing at their expense, although I realise such behaviour is not encouraged here.
- elblanco 17y agoI've found that these types of comments make for easy karma. The longer, more thoughtful ones make for significantly less.