5 ms·

Harass him? What an outrageously transparent attempt to prejudice the audience, which in this case happens to also be for your own benefit as well: Good judgmen

Harass him? What an outrageously transparent attempt to prejudice the audience, which in this case happens to also be for your own benefit as well: Good judgment would have been that you should stay away from these threads (for those who don't know, tptacek is a cofounder, with patio11, of their "turn HN fame into value" startup), but instead you come rushing in guns blazing. I found the consulting story incredibly dubious. None of the facts meshed, and I find those sorts of pie in the sky stories to actually be destructive to people entering or in the industry. If you find skepticism "harassment" -- does fame on HN make one untouchable -- you have a very perverse sentiment of what that is.

tptacek 11y ago
Two more paragraphs and not a single testable claim. What's probably more important for HN to know is that almost every single comment in your comment history follows this pattern. It is, literally, all you come here to write about. Not what specifically you find misleading about Patrick's consulting advice, but simply that you find the whole concept of Patrick "dubious". Especially amusing: "actually typing comments in response to your anonymous character sniping" == "guns blazing". Pew! Pew!
- irrigation 11y ago
  "Two more paragraphs and not a single testable claim." More attempts at prejudicing claims, which is sort of your comment habit. FACT: you are a cofounder with Patrick FACT: it would be good judgment for you to stay away from these threads. You lack good judgment. FACT: you are trying to lever HN fame into startup success FACT: Patrick's posts about consulting -- which sort of came out of nowhere, suddenly telling of incredible consulting success -- are extraordinarily atypical. The single and only support for them is you, and people who have never done consulting but imagine up some scenario where it seems reasonable. FACT: Those posts drew lead-up attention to "Starfighter", that startup that you are a partner in. I mean, it must be a sure win initiative if someone is going to eschew $50K/week consulting engagements (I saw the story linked far and wide, people amazed at the elite consultant earning that sort of rate) that are easy to come by for it. The audience lines up. Your tactic of simply dropping prejudicing claims gets a pass on here because you earned the "security guy" goodwill. On most sites you would have been exiled as a troll long ago.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    I think you're having some trouble with the concept of "facts". Once again: speaking as a consultant myself, and working in a field among many competing consultancies: Patrick's consulting experience is not at all atypical. Patrick was not a top-tier consultant, nor were his outcomes. People start consultancies and do much, much better than he did, or than I did. You seem to imply that you haven't, but I'm not sure why that's something you want to keep highlighting. (I edited this comment to remove a bit of vitriol from the top, and to add the response to this anonymous commenter's claim that Patrick's experience is atypical, before which mine was a one-line comment.)
    - irrigation 11y ago
      Which of those facts do you contest? Any? Oh, just another tptacek prejudicing reply: They must not be facts if you post some sarcastic comment, right? And yes, you are "Guns blazing". The endless, rather desperate edits that you are making to your comments make that amply evident.
      - anu_gupta 11y ago
        > FACT: it would be good judgment for you to stay away from these threads. You lack good judgment. That is not a fact. I don't know anyone involved here, but you really are looking like a troll with an agenda.
  - kasey_junk 11y ago
    > FACT: Patrick's posts about consulting -- which sort of came out of nowhere, Not a fact. You can go back and read about Patricks consulting efforts at least to 2010. At the time he claimed (and I have no reason to doub) to be billing out around ~5k a week (for his first few engagements). You can also read through his posts as he mentions walking up his rate. Again, its possible he was making all this up in a multi-year scheme to make elaborate claims. Personally, I'll take the evidence to read him as being truthful. Especially as it jives with what I've seen paid for consulting on the consumer side.

tptacek 11y ago

Two more paragraphs and not a single testable claim. What's probably more important for HN to know is that almost every single comment in your comment history follows this pattern. It is, literally, all you come here to write about. Not what specifically you find misleading about Patrick's consulting advice, but simply that you find the whole concept of Patrick "dubious". Especially amusing: "actually typing comments in response to your anonymous character sniping" == "guns blazing". Pew! Pew!

irrigation 11y ago
"Two more paragraphs and not a single testable claim." More attempts at prejudicing claims, which is sort of your comment habit. FACT: you are a cofounder with Patrick FACT: it would be good judgment for you to stay away from these threads. You lack good judgment. FACT: you are trying to lever HN fame into startup success FACT: Patrick's posts about consulting -- which sort of came out of nowhere, suddenly telling of incredible consulting success -- are extraordinarily atypical. The single and only support for them is you, and people who have never done consulting but imagine up some scenario where it seems reasonable. FACT: Those posts drew lead-up attention to "Starfighter", that startup that you are a partner in. I mean, it must be a sure win initiative if someone is going to eschew $50K/week consulting engagements (I saw the story linked far and wide, people amazed at the elite consultant earning that sort of rate) that are easy to come by for it. The audience lines up. Your tactic of simply dropping prejudicing claims gets a pass on here because you earned the "security guy" goodwill. On most sites you would have been exiled as a troll long ago.
- tptacek 11y ago
  I think you're having some trouble with the concept of "facts". Once again: speaking as a consultant myself, and working in a field among many competing consultancies: Patrick's consulting experience is not at all atypical. Patrick was not a top-tier consultant, nor were his outcomes. People start consultancies and do much, much better than he did, or than I did. You seem to imply that you haven't, but I'm not sure why that's something you want to keep highlighting. (I edited this comment to remove a bit of vitriol from the top, and to add the response to this anonymous commenter's claim that Patrick's experience is atypical, before which mine was a one-line comment.)
  - irrigation 11y ago
    Which of those facts do you contest? Any? Oh, just another tptacek prejudicing reply: They must not be facts if you post some sarcastic comment, right? And yes, you are "Guns blazing". The endless, rather desperate edits that you are making to your comments make that amply evident.
    - anu_gupta 11y ago
      > FACT: it would be good judgment for you to stay away from these threads. You lack good judgment. That is not a fact. I don't know anyone involved here, but you really are looking like a troll with an agenda.
- kasey_junk 11y ago
  > FACT: Patrick's posts about consulting -- which sort of came out of nowhere, Not a fact. You can go back and read about Patricks consulting efforts at least to 2010. At the time he claimed (and I have no reason to doub) to be billing out around ~5k a week (for his first few engagements). You can also read through his posts as he mentions walking up his rate. Again, its possible he was making all this up in a multi-year scheme to make elaborate claims. Personally, I'll take the evidence to read him as being truthful. Especially as it jives with what I've seen paid for consulting on the consumer side.