and its a result of reaction to MS devs digging in with such gems like DHowett highly edited responses: > We get it, Microsoft sucks, we should all be fired, r

and its a result of reaction to MS devs digging in with such gems like DHowett highly edited responses: > We get it, Microsoft sucks, we should all be fired, rah rah rah. > I just don't know what else he's asking for here. Credit? Us to die screaming? The blog post is matter-of-fact, and Casey is right: however, he said himself that it was trivial to do this. Is it not acceptable that we use the same language? > I'll admit that we didn't list him by name, but neither did we list the other handful of folks involved > Another day, another Casey post dunking on my team. Hi! > we apologized > Casey rightly did not acknowledge it except to tell his followers that it was not a real apology TLDR for people not in the loop: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31285123 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31285123 - You and lhecker insulted Casey Muratori - You insisted this was a "doctoral research" (your words) and that he was "misguided" (Leonard's words) - When it turned out he was right, you posted a non-apology (you didn't even name the person you were apologizing to) - A year later Leonard who claimed it was so hard now writes a blog post that "solution is trivial" and was "suggested by a community member". Once again failing to acknowledge the person who gave you this trivial solution so MS dev has been forced to finally give credit (but still no apologies), and it only took over a year, multiple edits and little side note blog post update.