>You disdain the love of wanting money?

At what point has my absolute contempt for "loving money and wanting more of it" been unclear to you? Because you really should have clued in around when I said "Yes?".

>Looks like you have some personal issues, you're taking this way too personal.

This is banter while I fold my laundry.

>some people love making money and there's nothing wrong with that.

See, you just keep on repeating your disagreement with me as if it's going to change anything. Moral imperatives are, well, imperative, you know? I'm just going to reiterate: there is something wrong with that.

I'll rephrase you: some people hate the love of money and there's nothing wrong with that, or at the very least, you can't do anything about it.

You're wasting your own time and giving me more opportunity to bash greed, which is, as I said, making the folding of my laundry more enjoyable.

But I guess it might bother you that someone might think your moral compass is off center because of your position on money.

I'm saying that HN's attention span is dominated by dollar signs.

I know! My point is merely that I wasn't lecturing.

>You have enough consideration to feel like posting a comment about how much you feel about it.

I suppose I enjoy throwing the moral imperative into sharp relief; making it clear just how much I disdain your vulgar acceptance of the love of wanting money.

That moral imperative alone is enough to carry weight in this thread. It has wandered in as mere sentiment without ever presenting an argument.

...Now, of course, I have strayed into lecturing you about the mechanics of this whole thing--but note I still have not lectured you with the moral judgment itself. I don't care about convincing you that money is vulgar. Sanctimony is enough for me.

You are quite right, though; I have spent enough time here.

Ha. I'm not lecturing; I simply have no respect or consideration for your position.

You are not being lectured: you are encountering an attitude with which you disagree, and one that has no regard for your disagreement.

>If a lot of smart people thought WhatsApp was worth 14B

Why are they smart? Because they have billions of dollars? Because Whatsapp is valuable? Because Whatsapp was less useful before the smart people bought it?

Are you incapable of viewing the transaction of 16 billion as a possible utter mistake? As financial hand-waving assigning a liquid value to shares whose value might well be inflated?

Money is a poor measure of value. Plain and simple. Are you drawn to the volume of the transaction because you think it signifies true success?

> it's probably worth taking a second look at what WhatsApp did to get to this point.

Something I never contested and agreed with explicitly.

Yes? It is not only vulgar, it is utterly clueless.

http://hn.algolia.com/#!/story/forever/prefix/0/Whatsapp%20s...

(Correction: the presentation is from 2012; I don't know when it was posted online.)

You may view this comment as too cynical for this particular topic, but the ridiculous surge in Whatsapp stories doesn't lie. And of course we should inspect the action of successful companies.

I am merely pointing at the crude vulgarity of the Valley's barometer for success.

(To the extent that I'm actually unsure of your intent.)

Goodnight.

>>Under the circumstances, it's time for you to get over yourself. The OP's post, and my reply, are perfectly symmetrical -- one demands the other.

Perfect. Now for an actual rebuttal...

---

>Surely it has by now occurred to you that you're defending this person's right to say whatever he chooses, while denying me the same right?

I didn't say you shouldn't say anything, I'm saying you're an asshole for being proud of having said anything.

Your original response regarding what constitutes a violation of physics was fine. Your response to gfodor was simple gloating.

He's just starting a conversation, and while I wouldn't advocate handing out participation ribbons, you're just trashing someone that had a thought and expressed it--you and gfodor are buddying up to one another over how worthless that thought is.

Spare us your revelry.

I'm as big a fan as a dirty flame war as anyone. I find complaints over HN's critical culture to be tiring and self-defeating.

But if you're going to be negative, don't give each other high fives about it.

Edit: I suppose this is directed more at you, lutusp, because gfodor seems to be posting criticism in earnest.

I think you'd find that an amicable suit-wearing programmer could easily do well at an interview.