3 ms·

Ok so you won’t read the article. Sorry to waste your time by suggesting you do that before proclaiming the reporter (whose reporting you didn’t read) isn’t doi

Ok so you won’t read the article. Sorry to waste your time by suggesting you do that before proclaiming the reporter (whose reporting you didn’t read) isn’t doing their job. Startups are great, but their chances of success are higher when the founders know what they’re talking about.

aerosmile 5y ago
This article originally linked to an Inc. article which I read top to bottom [1]. I also clicked on the link to the BI article and found that it's gated [2]. By the time you arrived at the party, the mods changed the source link from Inc to BI, which I would argue only confirms that the Inc article was total BS and was not deemed a good reference - so much so, that they even chose to link to a gated article, which is obviously not ideal. It's unfortunate that switching the source made it less clear which author's work I was commenting on, but I think that you'll see that most HN readers who engaged with me agreed that Jason Aten's article was rather weak. Your childish name calling, on the other hand, will always be unwelcome here regardless of circumstances, and please consider changing your approach or just go back to where you were prior to recently creating this HN account. [1] https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to-fire-practice-reveals-a-brutal-truth-about-management.html https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-attrition-rate-people-not-sad-to-lose-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-at...
- bestcoder69 5y ago
  I commented with a link to the archive.org for the BI article. It aligns with my first hand knowledge and what I’ve read elsewhere. I’m not interested in discussing this meta stuff or what names you’d prefer to be called, sorry. dang can ding me if I broke a rule, but that’s not your job. On HN I believe we’re supposed to discuss the merits of each other’s arguments.
  - aerosmile 5y ago
    I would prefer not to be called any names at all, thank you very much.

aerosmile 5y ago

This article originally linked to an Inc. article which I read top to bottom [1]. I also clicked on the link to the BI article and found that it's gated [2]. By the time you arrived at the party, the mods changed the source link from Inc to BI, which I would argue only confirms that the Inc article was total BS and was not deemed a good reference - so much so, that they even chose to link to a gated article, which is obviously not ideal. It's unfortunate that switching the source made it less clear which author's work I was commenting on, but I think that you'll see that most HN readers who engaged with me agreed that Jason Aten's article was rather weak. Your childish name calling, on the other hand, will always be unwelcome here regardless of circumstances, and please consider changing your approach or just go back to where you were prior to recently creating this HN account. [1] https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to-fire-practice-reveals-a-brutal-truth-about-management.html https://www.inc.com/jason-aten/amazons-controversial-hire-to... [2] https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-attrition-rate-people-not-sad-to-lose-2021-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-tracks-unregretted-at...

bestcoder69 5y ago
I commented with a link to the archive.org for the BI article. It aligns with my first hand knowledge and what I’ve read elsewhere. I’m not interested in discussing this meta stuff or what names you’d prefer to be called, sorry. dang can ding me if I broke a rule, but that’s not your job. On HN I believe we’re supposed to discuss the merits of each other’s arguments.
- aerosmile 5y ago
  I would prefer not to be called any names at all, thank you very much.