5 ms·

Omg, nobody proofread that article? Since when did TechCrunch become this horrible at actual...English? Look at these: "What Clinkle doesn’t do is allow instan

Omg, nobody proofread that article? Since when did TechCrunch become this horrible at actual...English? Look at these: "What Clinkle doesn’t do is allow instant peer-to-merchant payments via high frequency sounds without a like it was hoping." "Clinkle was shooting for the kind of “Innovation” with a capital I that we laud in Silicon Valley." "The app is certainly slick, with tons of delightful little animation flourishes." Did their writers go full retard?

21echoes 12y ago
Hey, Clinkle engineer here. We know Josh personally from our time together at Stanford. He really dislikes the company, and hopefully it was quite clear that the article was biased, rushed, and overall pretty unprofessional.
- CaveTech 12y ago
  I'm not exactly sure that you're unbiased in this discussion either. While the article may have been rushed, it didn't really seem unprofessional.
  - devindotcom 12y ago
    Wellll the headline is does describe them as a "laughingstock"
    - smoyer 12y ago
      Some laughingstocks really are laughingstocks ... My only recollection of Clinkle before this article was that the name might not be taken seriously (perhaps during a discussion here on HN). Who declared them to be a laughingstock? Probably not those who invested - and I'm not going to second guess the VC talent that put up their money.
- smoyer 12y ago
  Would you care to explain why I'd want to use your application/service? If his article is half right and you combine the gaps and flaws with your name (which makes me think of the urinal), I think his conclusion is correct. Note that I don't know your team or anything about your product, but you will be fighting public perception and the media. I would also say that the vapor-ware label is a bit unfair - I spent enough time in hardware businesses to know that some things take time.
- aaronem 12y ago
  Hey, non-Clinkle engineer here. I don't blame you for trying to defend the pivot, even when you can't possibly have much confidence in the offering -- who would? But personal attacks really aren't going to help you make your case.
hawkice 12y ago
It's INTER-net writitorics, even why edit, content go bye bye so fast.
smoyer 12y ago
I have a handicapped son and as I've pointed out here before, I'd appreciate it if you would choose a word that indicated the writer (in this case) decided to not live up to their potential instead of implying their potential was somehow degraded. Those with disabilities would thank you ... they often work very hard to do things we consider "rote". EDIT: I forgot to say that I absolutely agree with the sentiment of your comment ... reading that was brain-twistingly horrible (usually you can guess what words the author's spell-checker changed). I'm wondering if that post was typed on a phone using two big thumbs.
- Cookingboy 12y ago
  I sincerely apologize for my insensitivity. It was never my intention to insult people with disabilities, I'm sorry for any offense I may have caused :(
iancarroll 12y ago
> Even if its doubtful anyone will use it. Great grammar!
scintill76 12y ago
In the second one, the "I" should have quotes around it to set it off and show that it's referring to the letter, rather than the word. Pretty minor compared to the first one. I don't see anything grammatically incorrect about the third.

21echoes 12y ago

Hey, Clinkle engineer here. We know Josh personally from our time together at Stanford. He really dislikes the company, and hopefully it was quite clear that the article was biased, rushed, and overall pretty unprofessional.

CaveTech 12y ago
I'm not exactly sure that you're unbiased in this discussion either. While the article may have been rushed, it didn't really seem unprofessional.
- devindotcom 12y ago
  Wellll the headline is does describe them as a "laughingstock"
  - smoyer 12y ago
    Some laughingstocks really are laughingstocks ... My only recollection of Clinkle before this article was that the name might not be taken seriously (perhaps during a discussion here on HN). Who declared them to be a laughingstock? Probably not those who invested - and I'm not going to second guess the VC talent that put up their money.
smoyer 12y ago
Would you care to explain why I'd want to use your application/service? If his article is half right and you combine the gaps and flaws with your name (which makes me think of the urinal), I think his conclusion is correct. Note that I don't know your team or anything about your product, but you will be fighting public perception and the media. I would also say that the vapor-ware label is a bit unfair - I spent enough time in hardware businesses to know that some things take time.
aaronem 12y ago
Hey, non-Clinkle engineer here. I don't blame you for trying to defend the pivot, even when you can't possibly have much confidence in the offering -- who would? But personal attacks really aren't going to help you make your case.

hawkice 12y ago

It's INTER-net writitorics, even why edit, content go bye bye so fast.

smoyer 12y ago

I have a handicapped son and as I've pointed out here before, I'd appreciate it if you would choose a word that indicated the writer (in this case) decided to not live up to their potential instead of implying their potential was somehow degraded. Those with disabilities would thank you ... they often work very hard to do things we consider "rote". EDIT: I forgot to say that I absolutely agree with the sentiment of your comment ... reading that was brain-twistingly horrible (usually you can guess what words the author's spell-checker changed). I'm wondering if that post was typed on a phone using two big thumbs.

Cookingboy 12y ago
I sincerely apologize for my insensitivity. It was never my intention to insult people with disabilities, I'm sorry for any offense I may have caused :(

iancarroll 12y ago

> Even if its doubtful anyone will use it. Great grammar!

scintill76 12y ago

In the second one, the "I" should have quotes around it to set it off and show that it's referring to the letter, rather than the word. Pretty minor compared to the first one. I don't see anything grammatically incorrect about the third.