3 ms·

Did you read about the order of events?

• tomjakubowski 6y ago
  > In it, the company claims that The Wirecutter initially picked NextDesk as an editorial recommendation but later downgraded the recommendation after NextDesk declined to set up an affiliate-revenue agreement. I believe you're taking "after" in this sentence way too literally. The order of events isn't in dispute, what's at issue is whether Nextdesk's declination to enter a revenue sharing agreement caused Wirecutter to downgrade their ranking. This comment by geofft convinced me Nextdesk (RIP) was in the wrong in this dispute. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22144078 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22144078
• JohnBooty 6y ago
  You're reading a causal meaning into "after" that clearly was not intended by the author of Wirecutter's response. They are clearly expressing a simple temporal relation and not a causal one. Please be clear that I have no opinion on the truthfulness of the Wirecutter's response. Perhaps they're truly corrupt as all hell. I have no inside knowledge of how they operate. However, it is absolutely clear you're reading something into the "after" that was not intended.
  • pessimizer 6y ago
    "After" is a temporal word. We have may ways to clearly express cause that could have been used. Generally, one uses "after" to imply cause without explicitly saying it. Instead, Wirecutter has made a factually incorrect statement. That Thing 1 happened, then Thing 2 happened, then Thing 3 happened is not in dispute. Also not in dispute: Thing 3 happened after Thing 2, which happened after Thing 1.
    • JohnBooty 6y ago
      "After" can certainly imply causality but that is not necessarily the case and, from context, we can see it was clearly not the author's intent.