3 ms·

Starting the comment with "assuming this is the real reason" seems disingenuous in a post that seems to be supportive of the author. But that it's repeated aga

by cowpig 6y ago

Starting the comment with "assuming this is the real reason" seems disingenuous in a post that seems to be supportive of the author. But that it's repeated again in the 3rd paragraph, and that the final paragraph then mentions that it'll make Tim "hard to hire"? There's no basis in evidence: Tim's wikipedia page shows a history of activism consistent with taking this kind of stand, and a staggering resume that indicates it's unlikely he'll have any trouble finding work if he wants it. I'm pretty disappointed in HN that this is the top-voted comment on this article..

berryjerry 6y ago
There are always multiple reasons. As people below had pointed out he is 64 and already planning on retiring per announcements a year ago. This is another reason on top of the previous ones he stated. The straw that broke the camels back?
craigsmansion 6y ago
> There's no basis in evidence It's hard to rise to the top in a morally lax organisation without making some compromises on the way there. Furthermore, it's easy to take a stand when you're financially secure because of those compromises. So in my opinion the OP is right: it's good for Tim to take a stance if truly, deep down, he feels this is morally wrong, but ultimately him being outspoken means little when compared to those who did the right thing from the start and as such never got a position to make a headline on HN in the first place. Tim is assured of a cozy job with a "good guy" startup regardless. If genuine, it's certainly a personal victory for him, but it doesn't mean much for the rest of us (except, cynically, that selling out and then raising your profile by denouncing the party you sold out to is a valid career path).
abvdasker 6y ago
I agree that the subtext of the parent comment makes it seem a lot like concern trolling. Even if it is sincere, the qualifications riddled throughout the comment totally undercut any message of support the author may have intended.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

by cowpig 6y ago

berryjerry 6y ago

There are always multiple reasons. As people below had pointed out he is 64 and already planning on retiring per announcements a year ago. This is another reason on top of the previous ones he stated. The straw that broke the camels back?

craigsmansion 6y ago

> There's no basis in evidence It's hard to rise to the top in a morally lax organisation without making some compromises on the way there. Furthermore, it's easy to take a stand when you're financially secure because of those compromises. So in my opinion the OP is right: it's good for Tim to take a stance if truly, deep down, he feels this is morally wrong, but ultimately him being outspoken means little when compared to those who did the right thing from the start and as such never got a position to make a headline on HN in the first place. Tim is assured of a cozy job with a "good guy" startup regardless. If genuine, it's certainly a personal victory for him, but it doesn't mean much for the rest of us (except, cynically, that selling out and then raising your profile by denouncing the party you sold out to is a valid career path).

abvdasker 6y ago

I agree that the subtext of the parent comment makes it seem a lot like concern trolling. Even if it is sincere, the qualifications riddled throughout the comment totally undercut any message of support the author may have intended.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]