4 ms·

The investors and owners of the company knew the entire revenue model would collapse in on itself, Is it me, or has the standard of proof on HN dropped to imme

The investors and owners of the company knew the entire revenue model would collapse in on itself, Is it me, or has the standard of proof on HN dropped to immeasurable levels? What's that? Hmm? Oh no, I didn't say anything, not me. Just doing my part in the two minutes hate against anyone who isn't an engineer. We all know engineers are the unappreciated man-gods oppressed by the investor class. Boo investors! Hiss!

pessimizer 14y ago
Nobody mentioned engineers. It was a statement about more savvy investors with insider knowledge screwing less savvy investors without insider knowledge. Your criticism is like accusing somebody calling out unscrupulous used car dealers who sell lemons of hating people who own cars.
heretohelp 14y ago
I take it you didn't follow the investment rounds that preceded the IPO. We're talking about leadership that took 90% of a nearly $950 million investment round right off the table into their pockets. If you don't know the subject matter, GTFO.
- jessedhillon 14y ago
  You take it incorrectly. Now what?
  - heretohelp 14y ago
    If you see nothing wrong with what they did, I have some really hot stocks to tell you about.
    - jessedhillon 14y ago
      I'm sorry, perhaps you are unaware of this fact: the term "Ponzi scheme" has a specific meaning, which an activity either conforms to or it does not. If it does conform to that definition, then you should be able to present material facts about the activity which would cause a reasonable person to reach that conclusion. Likewise, when a person makes statements about the mental states of another, such as what those people did or did not know, that is a statement of fact. If you assert those facts, then you should have evidence to demonstrate that such things are true. Unfortunately, all you have are poorly formed, emotionally charged opinions informed by a couple of articles you read on TechCrunch. Or maybe the WSJ if you're a little more rigorous. What you don't have are sufficient facts to warrant the conclusions you're defending, unless -- and this is my point -- you have such a low standard for truth that practically any statement can be considered substantiated, so long as it agrees with your prejudices about who deserves wealth and what constitutes success.
      - heretohelp 14y ago
        Where did I say ponzi scheme?
        jessedhillon 14y ago
        Oh jeez, seriously? STFU dude. I was responding to the inane comment which called Groupon and Facebook a Ponzi scheme. I don't know why you're responding if it's not to defend/agree with that comment. Do you actually have anything to say, or are you compelled to react whenever you see someone not rabidly and mindlessly denouncing Groupon?

pessimizer 14y ago

Nobody mentioned engineers. It was a statement about more savvy investors with insider knowledge screwing less savvy investors without insider knowledge. Your criticism is like accusing somebody calling out unscrupulous used car dealers who sell lemons of hating people who own cars.

heretohelp 14y ago

I take it you didn't follow the investment rounds that preceded the IPO. We're talking about leadership that took 90% of a nearly $950 million investment round right off the table into their pockets. If you don't know the subject matter, GTFO.

jessedhillon 14y ago
You take it incorrectly. Now what?
- heretohelp 14y ago
  If you see nothing wrong with what they did, I have some really hot stocks to tell you about.
  - jessedhillon 14y ago
    I'm sorry, perhaps you are unaware of this fact: the term "Ponzi scheme" has a specific meaning, which an activity either conforms to or it does not. If it does conform to that definition, then you should be able to present material facts about the activity which would cause a reasonable person to reach that conclusion. Likewise, when a person makes statements about the mental states of another, such as what those people did or did not know, that is a statement of fact. If you assert those facts, then you should have evidence to demonstrate that such things are true. Unfortunately, all you have are poorly formed, emotionally charged opinions informed by a couple of articles you read on TechCrunch. Or maybe the WSJ if you're a little more rigorous. What you don't have are sufficient facts to warrant the conclusions you're defending, unless -- and this is my point -- you have such a low standard for truth that practically any statement can be considered substantiated, so long as it agrees with your prejudices about who deserves wealth and what constitutes success.
    - heretohelp 14y ago
      Where did I say ponzi scheme?
      - jessedhillon 14y ago
        Oh jeez, seriously? STFU dude. I was responding to the inane comment which called Groupon and Facebook a Ponzi scheme. I don't know why you're responding if it's not to defend/agree with that comment. Do you actually have anything to say, or are you compelled to react whenever you see someone not rabidly and mindlessly denouncing Groupon?