Maybe the headline should be edited. Right now, those who see only the headline are misled into believing that he has "returned as CEO," when evidence can only confirm that he is in control of the company's official communication channels.
Alright since you’re going to express moral indignation, allow me to say what I really think.
I think it is incredibly rude to go on a SHOW HN where a person may have (as in this case) spent months on an actual project and finally shows it, only to completely ignore everything about the actual project and snarkily announcs to everyone that it was “TL;DR” or these days “it smelled like LLM wrote the front page, so I didnt read anything! Haha nyeh nyeh.”
Imagine someone raised a child to play the piano, they ask you to listen to their performance and you leave a comment “didn’t bother watching — the thumbnail sucks, and this child is wearing unappealing clothing”.
In real life, you’d never do that. You know it’s wrong. You would probably get ostracized and rightly considered a jerk or in any case the parents would really take it badly.
You can just privately ignore the post. But to announce it as the first comment and make sure everyone else sees it — I would never shit on people’s projects like that.
In frustration, I left your exact comment on another SHOW HN that happened to have a nice AI-generated page, but the difference was … it was already trending and had many comments, so my comment barely registered.
So I did what you did — which was wrong and uncouth — but on something where it was the 20th comment, all the way on the bottom.
But here’s the best part. Then you show up, and explain, in your self-righteous way, that, you see, actually, what you did was right, but the exact same comment on another AI-generated website is totally wrong, because of ad-hoc nuance analysis you just made up. And everyone should be aware of this exact nuance, which you are now handwaving, because you are morally right and the other person than you shit on is morally wrong.
Suffice it to say that I think your whole analysis is backwards. What you did was rude, and what I did was a milder version of that. The bad faith is you then trying to further invent nuance as to why what you did is great and I’m in bad faith. Sorry buddy. Totally backwards.
He may have been "rude," but he was leaving his honest feedback. You, on the other hand, publicly posted what appeared to be criticism on a third party's project, with no disclosure that your comment was actually part of some unrelated personal feud. You are in no position to accuse anybody else of acting in "bad faith."
Many people observe a limited subset of reality. It's highly visible when a company hits a crisis and people lose their jobs; it's much more common, but much less visible, for a CEO to get an after-hours call about a brewing problem which they must immediately work to smooth over.
It’s amazing how many people on this website harp on about nobody noticing their hard work, nobody caring unless the server is down, etc, and not being able to conceive of the remote chance of this same phenomenon applying to other roles in an organisation.
I'm not quite sure why you ask that? I'm not arguing that these two very different examples are the same, I'm explaining more concretely what it means to say that a CEO's job is to "to be responsible to the business".
I do. It’s on the CEO’s shoulders the other 95% of the time. (Which again, I agree is not some horrible deal, it’s much more fun to be a CEO who’s stressed with too many calls than a blue collar worker who’s stressed about feeding their family.)
It's really incredible how so many of the people that in one thread will talk about workers rights will also come out to bat for some tech company's TOS.
Whatever your worldview is it's definitely not about freedom over authoritarianism.
It is not difficult to understand why you are being downvoted. You are insisting that your own personal observations are the absolute truth, and rejecting everyone else's.
Why should public institutions be trying to get views for political purposes? Isn't that directly contrary to the intended role of public institutions in a democracy?
Go ask your mom why she never posts on her own website, but does on closed platform social media. Her answer will be the same as all the people outside of the tech bubble you're in.
I obviously don't know about that person's mom, but a lot of hosting platforms and blog providers will do that for you if you don't want to do it yourself.
> My tolerance for people posting to X without also posting to an open platform is over.
> Public institutions especially.
> There's zero excuse, none.
Maybe it wasn't their intent, but they clearly wrote it as a more general statement, with an additional and specific intolerance to public institutions, which is also how others interpreted it.
Oh I sure do believe him. I just don't think it means one should be able to make up things regarding what he said on television.
As an aside: it's really sad to see how hard it is for people to comprehand complexities. One can be all for Palestinian state, against the war, think of Ben Gvir and Hamas as a similar evil, dedicate decades to mutual work towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and yet get some random internet dude saying things like "why are you defending him are you racist too!?!?!?!?" when all you're trying to do is to hold on to the simple facts in this conflict.
For what it is worth, I agree with you. So there is at least one other person out there who would like statements to remain factual. When the entire topic is already so emotionally charged, it seems even more important to attempt to just stick to being factual.
reply