3 ms·

> By definition, Yahoo's directors know how to spend Yahoo's cash reserves best. This is absolutely incorrect. There are many instances in which there is a pe

> By definition, Yahoo's directors know how to spend Yahoo's cash reserves best. This is absolutely incorrect. There are many instances in which there is a personal financial connection between a board member and an acquired company. For example, a board member is a limited in a VC fund. Didn't bother reading after that.

pron 14y ago
Ironic. The post says: "But it's really not ok to act functionally illiterate when you're not actually illiterate, when an advanced society that once put a man on the moon worked so hard to educate you." If you'd read the text more carefully you wouldn't have missed the sarcasm of the passage you were so quick to dismiss. He was being sarcastic!
- bcoates 14y ago
  I didn't see any sarcasm about that; through the rest of the essay he seemed to continue to take at face value that Yahoo's management is doing what they think right for Yahoo. The summly acquisition being some sort of self-dealing fraud would contradict his entire point.
richardjordan 14y ago
I think you're supposed to have read irony into that comment. If you had bothered reading after that you would have seen that. That and the author's critique of people who can't be bothered reading more than a few paragraphs - in your case presumably because your default assumption is that you must know more than the author of the article and that he cannot possibly have been making a sophisticated point that would take more than that single sentence to unpack.
darkchasma 14y ago
By definition, even if you include your statement, Yahoo directors know how to spend Yahoo's cash reserves best. It may be for their own best interest, but your statement doesn't contradict the OP's.
mbetter 14y ago
Ten points for missing the point. You get more points than the informative posts because you are the glue - the viscous, translucent glue that makes the Hacker News comment pages always stick together into a big, messy ball of self-satisfied cluelessness.

pron 14y ago

Ironic. The post says: "But it's really not ok to act functionally illiterate when you're not actually illiterate, when an advanced society that once put a man on the moon worked so hard to educate you." If you'd read the text more carefully you wouldn't have missed the sarcasm of the passage you were so quick to dismiss. He was being sarcastic!

bcoates 14y ago
I didn't see any sarcasm about that; through the rest of the essay he seemed to continue to take at face value that Yahoo's management is doing what they think right for Yahoo. The summly acquisition being some sort of self-dealing fraud would contradict his entire point.

richardjordan 14y ago

I think you're supposed to have read irony into that comment. If you had bothered reading after that you would have seen that. That and the author's critique of people who can't be bothered reading more than a few paragraphs - in your case presumably because your default assumption is that you must know more than the author of the article and that he cannot possibly have been making a sophisticated point that would take more than that single sentence to unpack.

darkchasma 14y ago

By definition, even if you include your statement, Yahoo directors know how to spend Yahoo's cash reserves best. It may be for their own best interest, but your statement doesn't contradict the OP's.

mbetter 14y ago

Ten points for missing the point. You get more points than the informative posts because you are the glue - the viscous, translucent glue that makes the Hacker News comment pages always stick together into a big, messy ball of self-satisfied cluelessness.