It’s common for commenters in online forums who have lost the argument to resort to ad hominem attacks — including references to their comment history and vague repulsion of the content of their character, despite they themselves possessing many of those same traits.

It’s not just that you — the person I am replying to — has no leg to stand on, it’s also a case of human stubbornness.

In the next phase after this reply, commenters in this situation will turn toward a melancholic assessment of their sadness and disappointment with the way the conversation went. They may bring up unrelated subjects — in this case, how corporate does not care about their opponent’s hustle culture mindset — further delivering an ad hominem attack disguised as charitable pity on their opponent’s constructed persona. The goal is not just to paint the opponent as wrong, it’s also to paint them as mentally unwell so that the content is further discredited despite its objective merit.

Typically, they will re-affirm the superior quality of their own character — this is a tactic used to maintain moral superiority and avoid discussing the issue at hand.

Their next move is simple — they will declare that they are done replying.

Critically, the commenter will never address the original criticism — in this case, never addressing their hypocrisy in willingness to deliver harsh and unwarranted criticism toward another commercially successful project — while refusing to accept similar criticism of their own project or admit that they would not enjoy the same surface-level aesthetic attacks against the merits of their own project.

I am surprised that as an open source project maintainer that you would do that. Don’t you know first hand what it’s like to get lame comments about how your project is pointless? I’m surprised someone who maintains a notable project would be so willing to criticize others in this way.

“I don’t think a dick measuring contest is order here” is something that someone who lost the dick measuring contest would say. “I could have sold out.” I imagine Sequoia Capital was begging you to accept their term sheet for your third party robot vacuum firmware, but you were the better man and turned them down, gotta keep it real. Respect.

I don’t know if I would put Cisco or Nortel in that category, either. They were like gold rush pickaxe companies. The pickaxes themselves weren’t particularly innovative in their case.

A lot of the innovative companies from the dot com era are still around.

I don’t like the product either. But I can see why someone would buy it.

Nvidia just wants to sell stuff to everyone.

And I think for professionals doing local AI work, products like Strix Halo and Apple Silicon are a competitive threat.

A big part of maintaining the leading software ecosystem is ensuring you have competitive hardware for all your users.

I also think the RTX Spark product is relatively low effort for Nvidia. Grab a Mediatek CPU and slap an Nvidia GPU on the die. Sure, that’s oversimplifying it, but still.

The author of the blog just didn't accept the explanation.

This would be like if I just wrote a blog post and complained that every company sending me an email about updating the terms and conditions and I just called it "marketing" because I didn't know better.

Which, again, the author never disclosed the content of the email, only their opinion that they were marketing emails, when NYT's explicit description was spelling out the fact that they were one-time transactional emails that end in 14 days.

I'm not dying on any hill, I'm just factually pointing out that emails that have a defined end date are by legal definition able to be categorized as transactional.

I must apparently point out again and again, the author of the article never posted the content of the messages so for all we know they are 0% marketing.

A browser in a memory unsafe language that looks like it's 20 years old, "written" by a sloperator and it doesn't render a bunch of stuff.

With the amount of modern security that depends on the browser, I can't see how one could recommend this.

I also would be a lot less critical of this project if it wasn't claiming to be at a 1.0.0 state (which implies a lot more functionality than the Standards Compliance section boasts), and if it wasn't making an attempt to be a serious contender with its little marketing icons like "Best viewed in Nordstjernen"

However, on the other hand, a lot of keyboard warriors on here love to be edgelords about refusing to take any initiative, as if every single form of interview that makes you work the muscle in your skull is a violation of the Geneva convention.

Like I said, perhaps selfishly, I don’t want to work with people who are going to complain every time they’re made to do something while being paid very good money to do it. I’m not telling them to work a 996 or miss their kids’ dance recital, I’m just asking for a solid 4-6 hours of honest work per day.

If you think that’s unreasonable, please go ahead and add a few fire sauce packets to the bag for me.

My interview process is very reasonable. If you’ve hit the point where you are required to do a 2-3 hour technical interview round with me, you’re a short list candidate and only have 1-3 competitors for a very lucrative job.

If that’s too much of a hoop for you, I’ll just take the sandwich, no fries with that.

If you as a manager can’t detect your employees coasting that’s a you problem. Understanding how to motivate your current employees is not in the scope of the interview process.

For your second paragraph, we can use a cynical attitude calling this “jumping through a hoop like a circus clown” but do you really want to hire someone with such a cynical view of the minor inconvenience of interviewing?

A lot of candidates are very accepting of the fact that interviews will take some work to complete and don’t take a cynical attitude to it.

I don’t have any interest in hiring someone who thinks 2-3 hours of time for a short list candidate interview after the screening process is unreasonable.

If you have made it to my 2-3 hour interview process, you are only competing against 2-3 people for the job. This isn’t some kind of unreasonable waste of time, I’m offering salaries multiple times the median salary, sign-on bonus, equity, generous PTO and free healthcare plan, etc. Having a chance to get all that is definitely worth 3 hours of interviews.

I don’t really need to hire the person who has $10 million in their bank account and refuses to lift a finger to get a job. That person can enjoy their life and do something else.

At some point as an employer you do want someone who is motivated enough to take some time out of their day to prepare for an interview.

Do you really want an employee who gives so little of a shit that they refuse to use their brain to get a job?

This isn’t exactly a hot labor market in tech. Companies have a good selection of quality talent available right now.

I still agree that the company is disastrously overvalued. Even if we consider Starlink to be just as valuable as a telecom like Verizon, that’s only a $190 billion dollar company.

The best thing that could happen to the US auto industry is if the US government allowed China into the US.

I would say I’m not even trying to spin it. For all I know the emails say “here is the user manual for our app” or “thanks for signing up, please enable 2FA as soon as possible.” The author of the blog post never actually detailed the contents of the email.

You define them as marketing emails (without knowing the content) but the company is saying that they are a critical part of the service.

I am basically saying that they have a pretty reasonable legal argument that covers their ass in court because they stop sending them after 14 days and they are directly tied to the onboarding to the service.

How can it be marketing if you already bought the product and people who didn’t buy the product can’t possibly receive the same set of emails?

1. The emails are only sent to new paying customers.

2. They seem to describe how to use the functionality in the service (again, we don’t know exactly because the author won’t post contents, but that’s what the disclaimer message says)

3. They end after 14 days

4. They aren’t sent to prospective customers

A certain type of player just checks for cracked versions first even though they have the money to buy the game and for that person Denuvo buying the publisher a few weeks/months of a crack not being available is worth the investment.

I suspect that a lot of the most famous examples of big budget games with no DRM at all have an older, more educated, and more affluent demographic.

They are part of the transaction and they are not an ongoing marketing mailing list. They end completely after 14 days.

The author described them as "marketing" but did not disclose the content in any way.