4 ms·
Am I the only one that interpreted as a light-hearted sarcastic remark? In the same interview he admitted to being very sarcastic when supporting key features o
by enjalot 15y ago
Am I the only one that interpreted as a light-hearted sarcastic remark? In the same interview he admitted to being very sarcastic when supporting key features of g+
I'd like to hear the audio to check out his inflection and the full context.
I was surprised by Vic ending with "that's why we didn't fire him." The thought of firing Yegge over a rant would signal extreme shortsightedness to me...
- bostonpete 15y agoWell, others had discussed whether he'd get fired, but I think the consensus was that he wouldn't because it'd be a bad PR move. However, I don't think it's correct to say that they would have been firing him "over a rant". They would have been firing him over a lengthy, detailed, public (intentional or not) criticism of the company that went after the most senior company executives by name. I don't think he should have been fired, but I think something like that would be considered at least a "fire-able" offense at pretty much any company.
- 0x12 15y ago> but I think something like that would be considered at least a "fire-able" offense at pretty much any company. Only for insecure managers.
- kragen 15y agoIt read to me like he was answering the question, "Why didn't you fire Yegge for posting this?"