4 ms·

I mean you can poach an egg, it's not that strict

acdha 4y ago
True, but there probably aren’t that many readers who thought it meant Google cooked someone. The other meaning is a specialized form of theft.
- pc86 4y ago
  And the third definition that you are conveniently ignoring is the one that matters here: "to attract (someone, such as an employee or customer) away from a competitor"[0] I wonder if this pedantic nonsense on HN is ever going to stop? "Poach" is a perfectly fine word to use here, everyone knows exactly what it means, and for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach
  - chrismarlow9 4y ago
    It won't end. Ego is a helluva drug.
  - jmull 4y ago
    However, that definition is derived from the one meaning to hunt, illegally or without permission, on someone else's property. It retains the implication of unfairly taking or appropriating something belonging to someone else. Read every other definition on the page you linked. Here are some more: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach This one has essentially the same definition from your link. But notice the example usage: "They were furious when one of their best managers was poached by another company." Why furious? Because they feel someone took something belonging to them -- that is, the employment opportunity of person. Here's another, where the most benign definition doesn't even make the list: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach > for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." I'm not making an abstract point there. You must be unaware of the history of collusion between Apple and Google where they agreed not to poach each other's employees. There's your lack of agency. You can't choose an option that is withheld from you. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...
  - acdha 4y ago
    Yes, that last usage is a modern use based on the first one, which is why it has a negative connotation. For example: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=poach https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=poach > To take or appropriate unfairly or illegally: poaching another firm's best employees. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach?q=poach_1 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach?q=... > [ T ] disapproving: to persuade someone who works for someone else to come and work for you Again, that is the negative tone which people don't like: the idea that it's somehow infringing on the company's property rather than individuals freely engaging in normal activities. Part of why people are sensitive to that is that those same companies illegally colluded to prevent people from taking jobs, with lost wages measuring in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This didn't just come out of nowhere but is something which is in recent memory and directly or indirectly affected incomes for many people in the tech industry: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...

True, but there probably aren’t that many readers who thought it meant Google cooked someone. The other meaning is a specialized form of theft.

pc86 4y ago
And the third definition that you are conveniently ignoring is the one that matters here: "to attract (someone, such as an employee or customer) away from a competitor"[0] I wonder if this pedantic nonsense on HN is ever going to stop? "Poach" is a perfectly fine word to use here, everyone knows exactly what it means, and for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." [0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poach
- chrismarlow9 4y ago
  It won't end. Ego is a helluva drug.
- jmull 4y ago
  However, that definition is derived from the one meaning to hunt, illegally or without permission, on someone else's property. It retains the implication of unfairly taking or appropriating something belonging to someone else. Read every other definition on the page you linked. Here are some more: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/poach This one has essentially the same definition from your link. But notice the example usage: "They were furious when one of their best managers was poached by another company." Why furious? Because they feel someone took something belonging to them -- that is, the employment opportunity of person. Here's another, where the most benign definition doesn't even make the list: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach https://www.dictionary.com/browse/poach > for the love of god it's not depriving anyone of any "agency." I'm not making an abstract point there. You must be unaware of the history of collusion between Apple and Google where they agreed not to poach each other's employees. There's your lack of agency. You can't choose an option that is withheld from you. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-google-settle-antitrust-lawsuit-hiring-collusion https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...
- acdha 4y ago
  Yes, that last usage is a modern use based on the first one, which is why it has a negative connotation. For example: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=poach https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=poach > To take or appropriate unfairly or illegally: poaching another firm's best employees. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach?q=poach_1 https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/poach?q=... > [ T ] disapproving: to persuade someone who works for someone else to come and work for you Again, that is the negative tone which people don't like: the idea that it's somehow infringing on the company's property rather than individuals freely engaging in normal activities. Part of why people are sensitive to that is that those same companies illegally colluded to prevent people from taking jobs, with lost wages measuring in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This didn't just come out of nowhere but is something which is in recent memory and directly or indirectly affected incomes for many people in the tech industry: https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-settle-anti-poaching-lawsuit-for-415-million/ https://www.cnet.com/tech/tech-industry/apple-google-others-...