I'm speaking about this particular post and not her body of "writing" in general. Rest assured, I don't share negative opinions very often on HN, but when I do

I'm speaking about this particular post and not her body of "writing" in general. Rest assured, I don't share negative opinions very often on HN, but when I do it's well supported by FACTS and not flippancy, as you suggest. Small Stuff: Her syntax is poor, repetitive and shows very little organization or proofreading. Case in point, these are her words: <<"You are likely to not move fast enough and therefore run out of money. A startup at the very beginning is about time and money. You need to get time in order to be able to do the company, but if you take too much time, you will run out of money.">> Note: that is just terrible. Sorry. Big Stuff: She makes exaggerated leaps of logic, as if there are missing paragraphs, and her mix of facts and disjointed statements make for some terrible contradictions, some of which are insulting to the reader, such as (again, her words): A) <<"...the vast majority of women do not want to run startups.">> B) <<"...women care more about their personal life than men do.">> C) <<"... women are likely to bring diversity [of opinion] to a male founding team, and that’s not what founding teams need.">> She basically broke the article into several disjointed sections, trying to paste it all together with random facts showing "false causality" (look it up) and the end result is very sloppy. This article is a good example of how not to write. Ever. It's painful to read. I stick by my original, unfortunately ironic, comment.