> Mosley told the court that he had no real way to investigate the company’s claims and that he relied on the work of others to vet the company.
Groupthink rearing its ugly head.
Groupthink rearing its ugly head.
I appreciate that you're doing better with this account than the previous one, but it's still a problem. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
dang, can you elaborate on what you might be seeing in this post? with respect, it seems fine. I've read the article, read the comment, and read the guidelines, but I'm not seeing it. giving my most charitable interpretation, it seems like a (sane) commentary on the bonehead move by Mosley using the walgreen's deal as an appeal to authority and through that exuberance his cohort also invested - this is what is typically known as what the commenter described, so their comment makes sense to an impartial observer.
I get there is some prior history with this user, but I give you my humbled plea - it's Friday, let this one ride and let's see where it goes. Perhaps their prior conduct is coloring your interpretation of their progress - assume good faith.
You seem to be assuming that we're not already doing that?
The issue is the pattern with the current account. If people genuinely change their ways, we don't hold past accounts against them. When they repeat, that's obviously a problem.
I've been countering the institutionalized paradigm that HN's primary group of users has been trying to defend. I am a digital soldier.
The time has come for that paradigm to end. [2]