Ask HN: Why aren't there other biographies of Steve Jobs? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Why aren't there other biographies of Steve Jobs?

11 pointsfdeage80 comments

Steve Jobs passed more than 10 years ago.

He's most certainly an important historical figure of our time, but for some reason we are still stuck with the 10 yr-old hagiography from Walter Isaacson (which is ok-ish but feels rushed out, and was commissioned by Jobs himself).

Do you know of any other good, serious Steve Jobs biography?

View on HN

I wouldn't say Jobs was that important of a historical figure. He, at the end of the day, was a business man and good at marketing. I would find a biography of Wozniak more interesting since he actually did a lot of the early engineering at Apple and was the technical genius in the early days of Apple.

Essentially, I think Woz would have gone on to make a name for himself with or without Jobs. Jobs on the other hand, probably would have been a nobody without Woz.

Woz had an aircraft accident after the Apple II and kind of fell off the ball after that. So much so that Jobs had to go to Bill Gates to get some very necessary coding work completed. Woz had a brilliant but relatively short streak at being the top engineer of his time.

Also, there is a autobiography of Woz, iWoz[0]

[0] https://smile.amazon.com/iWoz-BYWozniak-Wozniak/dp/B006Q4IWX...

I will have to check out that autobiography, thanks!

I see your point, but I think history doesn't care about merit. Even if he was only the best phone seller in history, selling phone has become so important in our times that this achievement would still make him a historical figure IMO.

Also, definitely not sure about Woz. He would probably have found a nice job, sure, but it's a far stretch to say he would have revolutionized as many industries as Apple did.

Steve Jobs is one of the most important historical figures of our lifetime, if not the most. Here is why. He broke the hold the carriers had over phones. In doing so changed the world and ushered in the mobile economy.

Remember back to pre iPhone days. Each carrier had their own version of the phone. That phone came with bloatware and a curated list of possible apps you may download … from the carrier. The carrier had total control and say of the phone, it’s functionality and the apps installed.

Imagine a world today where the phone App Store and phone function itself was controlled by the carrier. The carrier dictates if Uber or Lyft is available to “their” customers. Only certain banks or restaurants are available based upon agreements with the carriers.The carrier picks the winners and losers in this new mobile economy and the world is fragmented based upon your cell phone carrier.

Things we take for granted like maps, messaging and FaceTime would be additional costs you pay to the carrier.

Because of Steve Jobs and his vision, that dystopian carrier controlled world does not exist. The new mobile and gig economy is all because Steve Jobs had the vision to wrestle control from the carriers. Name one other person in the last 50 years that has had this much effect on the world and how society has changed.

This is an US specific issue - in Europe it was common to just buy the device outright and use it with whichever carrier. And whilst it's cool that Apple was against the tyranny of carriers, it's very obvious it has no qualms about being the tyrant itself.

Wait, wasn't iPhone an AT&T/Cingular exclusive for awhile? I feel like this is kind of antithetical to the idea of escaping the tyranny of carriers. Unless escaping the tyranny of carriers means that between 2007 and 2011, iPhones were tired to one carrier.

Then there is the side loading apps issue. There is only one true source for apps on iPhone, but someone can actually build an alternative app store for android phones. This seems more like walled garden activity.

At least with carriers we'd have more competition, now everything you mention is basically controlled by two companies. I'm not sure if that's any better.

Try Becoming Steve Jobs by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli. Gruber's review:

* https://daringfireball.net/linked/2015/03/02/becoming-steve-...

Gruber's review of Isaacson's book:

> Note that my complaints here are not about Isaacson being insufficiently deferential. That the book is not a hagiography is to its credit. The personal stuff — documentation of Jobs’s cruelty (and his talent for cruelty), his tantrums, his tendency to claim for himself the ideas of others — that’s not problematic. Isaacson handles that well, and what he reports in that regard jibes with everything we know about the man. My complaints are about outright technical inaccuracies, and getting the man’s work wrong. The design process, the resulting products, the centrality of software — Isaacson simply misses the boat.

* https://daringfireball.net/2012/02/walter_isaacson_steve_job...

I was thinking that everything’s been covered already. For instance, a book about Next would just be a rehash of “Soul of a New Machine”.

On consideration, I’d really like to know more about ‘97 to ‘07. You’ve got Jobs rejoining Apple, creation of iMac, moving to Intel processors, creation of the iPod, creation of the Apple stores, culminating with the creation of the iPhone. Those ten years with some incredibly gutsy decisions did change society. But I’d want this theoretical book to be about many more people, not just Jobs.

I just finished "Becoming Steve Jobs" by Brent Schlender and Rick Tetzeli. Not a full bio but has some great stories about Steve Jobs at NeXT, Pixar, and his return to Apple.

If I remember correctly was written almost as a reaction to the official biography misunderstanding/misrepresenting the character. I'd say that it's a difficult biography to write since his character seems to have changed quite a lot over his lifetime, and accounts from one era will not be applicable to another. Small Fry is an interesting personal account over time, but obviously very biased and particular. I really enjoyed folklore.org for a look at the professional side of things from a very specific period, and would recommend the hypercritical episode on the book [0] for some good arguments on why Isaacson was the wrong person to write the biography.

[0]: http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42

One of the themes (reflected in the title, even) of "Becoming Steve Jobs" is precisely that Jobs changed. For example, it starts out with a formative episode from early in his career that the authors use to illustrate how Jobs constantly used failures to re-evaluate his approach to work and life, as develop his character.

Not a strict biography format but folklore.org has many stories about Steve written by those that worked with him.

Here’s one from one of the original Mac engineers, Bill Atkinson: https://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&stor...

It's mostly about the author, though her father necessarily features large - with Lisa Brennan-Jobs' 'Small Fry'. From 2018

https://www.booktopia.com.au/small-fry-lisa-brennan-jobs/boo...

One thing I love about Steve is that he didn’t play the PR bullshit game with regards to his personal image. While Zuck sells stock so that he can put his name on a hospital, he lives in a compound. By comparison Steve lived in a simple house on a public street.

> By comparison Steve lived in a simple house on a public street.

Up until his death, he was in a court battle to demolish and rebuild his mansion that sat on a 6 acre estate.

From Puffin's Extraordinary Lives:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Extraordinary-Life-Steve-Jobs-Lives...

> He's most certainly an important historical figure of our time

Is he actually though? He was really wealthy, and sold a lot of mobile devices.

He was fanboyed over by a lot of mobile device enthusiasts.

Of note outside of this - he was a horrible person to work with, and died in large part of lala land medical thinking.

Is this what an important historical figure is these days?

Historical figures are typically more than just grease in the profit engine of a multinational.

I never said he was a good person. A certain Adolf from Austria is also certainly an important historical figure. I'm just saying that whether we like him or not, Steve Jobs matters, and that a century from now it will probably be helpful to read stuff about him to understand our society, the same way we might read today about, say, Galileo to understand science in the 17th century. I don't think this qualifies as being a fanboy.

> Steve Jobs matters, and that a century from now it will probably be helpful to read stuff about him to understand our society, the same way we might read today about, say, Galileo to understand science in the 17th century. I don't think this qualifies as being a fanboy.

This is... nothing short of outrageous haha.

1. Thinking people will be reading about jobs in 100 years, like we read about Galileo now?

2. Thinking you're not a fanboy, after saying this.

Beyond hilarious.

> I'm just saying that whether we like him or not, Steve Jobs matters

Steve jobs really, _really_ doesn't matter. His death has had essentially zero impact on the broader world. In the world closer to him, it made some people sad, probably many more quite happy, and caused some wealth transfers. The company he ran continues to run in about the same arc you'd have expected it to. Even the stock market doesn't really care he's missing. It took a week or two for stock to recover and grow.

I wasn't talking about his death specifically, although the fact that so many people wrote about how they felt personally affected definitely says something. Name one CEO who would trigger the same reaction.

Also, I also wasn't talking about the legacy of the company he founded, or about the fact that Tim Cook managed to create more shareholder value than he did.

I was only thinking about the influence he had, and keeps having, on tech products and companies today.

Really, what is there to write about though?

His influence on modern technology is almost all flash and no substance. All you need to do to confirm that is look at how technology has stagnated over the past 10 years. The 70s gave us C, the 80s gave us affordable home computers, the 90s gave us desktop metaphors and friendly computers, and the 2000s gave us... the iPhone? The 2010s is even more ephemeral, as his 'legacy' has mostly just encouraged other companies to build their own walled gardens and enforce insane monetization strategies. Bud Tribble said it best: Steve Jobs' greatest attribute was creating a reality distortion field. His demeanor was what made people see the iPod as more than a hard drive with a clickwheel strapped to it, or the Magic Mouse as a legitimate replacement for a traditional pointing device (history knows how that one turned out).

Maybe it sounds like I'm being rough on the guy, but it's hard to deny that the majority of his life was dependent on hyperbole and marketing magic. His 'Disneyfication' of the consumer technology is made out to be a lot more sophisticated than it really is. Apple is barely able to hold on to that facade these days as regulators and antitrust organizations start to press them.

> He was really wealthy, and sold a lot of mobile devices.

He created the worlds most profitable company. That deserves some attention.

If we demand perfection of role models; then we won't get any. That is why we have them, to some extent - to learn what flaws are safe to ignore as we strive to make the world better.

He was the ceo of the worlds most profitable (for a while) company.

Wow amazing. What a role model?

It’s observable that it wasn’t “just” about the money for him. He walked away from that company after they sidelined him. Most execs would just rest and vest but instead he rage quit and sunk his own money to save Pixar and spin up NeXT, and at least of those companies had a major cultural impact, so give him a little credit.

Creating highly profitable companies is the only reliable, repeatable scalable and publicly accessible method available for improving people's lives at a mass scale. You could even put exclamation marks after your "Wow" and it would still be literally amazing and he'd still be a good role model.

This is an insane statement. Have you ever heard of government? Of non-profits? Of individual work? Publicly funded research?

This is the kind of statement I'd expect to hear at one of those libertarian meets where they threaten you with toaster licenses.

Yes. None of them do as much good as a big network of profitable corporations do. When governments or non-profits have been primarily responsible for feeding people there is often mass starvation, for example. Business is more of a hydra that can do many things effectively simultaneously while a government is limited in focus. There is always a need for more competent CEOs.

Publicly funded research and individual effort aren't very powerful either, basically the best an individual can do is make an interesting observation that sets a corporation up to actually run with the idea.

I find it interesting that you think he was merely grease in a profit engine. Mobile phones existed before the iPhone, but it’s certainly not easy to just come out and make something that is so extraordinarily popular that it changes the industry. And he did that time and time again throughout his career, in different ways.

As I noted in another comment, he was probably quite an asshole. And that is unfortunately a trait that has been true of countless major figures throughout all of history. Being an asshole is a rather orthogonal consideration.

It’s also remarkable, whether you like him or not, that he took a company on the brink of bankruptcy, and that was so trivial as to hardly matter anymore, and built a foundation that made it the first trillion dollar company in the world. Say what you want, but he was quite a remarkable businessman.

Disagree. What’s wrong with being wealthy and selling a lot of mobile devices. Great accomplishments.

By the way he sold iPhones, not generic mobile devices. :)

1. You can't disagree with me because I never said anything was wrong with being wealthy.

2. iphones are the epitome of generic mobile devices, and have been since their second gen. That's an accomplishment in and of its self - but doesn't make what I said very wrong.

He revolutionized the computer industry 3 times with the Apple II, then the Mac, then the iPhone, and the film industry once with Pixar.

Perhaps there aren't more biographies of Steve Jobs, because the general public does not really consider Jobs to be "an important historical figure of our time" (and neither Apple to be the most important technological company of our time)?

IMHO, when the iPhone came out, it did not introduce almost anything revolutionary over the already available Windows Mobile PDA devices, it only simplified, polished and packaged the device way better. I still do not understand how Microsoft, considering their extensive experience in operating system development, somehow managed to lose their entire, massive mobile device market share in the course of only a couple of years. All it could have taken for Microsoft to win over Apple was to switch Windows Mobile from a cumbersome stylus-based UI to a convenient touch-based UI without wasting years and years to re-develop the misguided Windows Phone from scratch.

> I still do not understand how Microsoft, considering their extensive experience in operating system development, somehow managed to lose their entire, massive mobile device market share in the course of only a couple of years.

Maybe because the iPhone actually delivered much much more that was already available on windows mobile ?

Even if the iPhone delivered much more than what was already available on Windows Mobile (doubtful, considering that Microsoft's software was years of development ahead, functionality-wise), it's still incomprehensible to me why a company as massively experienced as Microsoft did not react as quickly as possible by copying iPhone features to improve Windows Mobile, but instead delayed their time-to-market for years by going the Windows Phone route.

Probably, it was not Apple's ingenuity that won the battle, but Microsoft's stupidity not to improve their product ASAP that lost the battle.

You're talking about the biggest IT company which in 2006 was redesigning their whole big boy Windows.

Ballmer was deriding the iPhone by not having a keyboard, therefore being just a gimmick not worth of being a work device.

Plus, probably in 2007 having access a capacitive touch screens was most likely not so simple as today. The availability was limited. Plus, the apps were designed around having a physical keyboard and buttons available.

You need to take in consideration that big corporations are more often slow, bureaucratic, in decision paralysis and having in control people that are managers, not innovators. Microsoft is one of these from time to time, it is a pendulum swing. Steve Balmer was a marketing guy, not an innovator like Steve Jobs. If you look closely, being an innovator is not the path to success, Steve jobs was fired by a bureaucrat (and the board) at Apple, Elon Musk caught a lot of flak at all times, etc. The cancer of incompetent managers is a recurring plague in companies and generalized in governments, that's life.

There are exceptions, but they are not the rule.

Internal politics + bean counters at the wheels.

the original iPhone had no 3G (only Edge supported), no copy-paste, no app store (by design!), no MMS. Edit: and most likely no enterprise directory integration (Exchange et al)

BUT it felt the most futuristic piece of technology money could buy, and the high price point made it a luxury good that stood out of the Blackberries and Windows phones.

I like to think it was bought by CEOs and CTOs and executives who forced their IT dept. to support them because they were just so damn cool.

At the time, it felt to me like the first big iPhone user cohort was iPod power-users. I seem to remember business users dismissing it as a gimmick because of the lack of keyboard, wifi, and apps. That's only my personal recollection, though, I have no actual data.

I think that's what the OP is saying. It's like Microsoft had a 2 mile lead in a marathon, but still ended up coming last.

three words: user experience design. Windows designs tools and Apple designs experiences for its users. This is coming from someone who has only owned a G4 laptop from Apple. Im not a huge consumer of their ecosystem.

Are you familiar with the abomination that used to be called the Control Panel ?

Microsoft is a B2B company, not a B2C.

If you look at the modern iPhone, it' settings tree structure is as confusing and unmanageable as the good old Control Panel, there's almost no UI ergonomics difference nor any UI innovation there.

Well, since Microsoft invested as massively into the Windows Phone as to re-develop it from scratch and ship free 1.0 devices to all developers who requested one, I would say that Microsoft did indeed want to keep their B2C market share pretty badly. Yet, they failed.

Could you please elaborate on your opinion? I personally really liked the old Windows control panel

If you don’t understand how iPhone could have defeated Windows Mobile, it’s hard to take you seriously on your other points.

You m-u-s-t be a Steve Jobs fan, you even argue similarly ;) J/K.

But seriously, there is a question of whether Apple won the mobile device battle because they were brilliant and revolutionary, or whether Microsoft has lost the mobile device battle because they were dumb as a bag'o'hammers and quit improving their platform for entire years.

Which goes back to my initial suggestion that the general public might have reasons not to really consider Apple to be the most important technological company of our time.

If you have an explanation, I'd be delighted.

> But seriously, there is a question of whether Apple won the mobile device battle because they were brilliant and revolutionary, or whether Microsoft has lost the mobile device battle because they were dumb as a bag'o'hammers and quit improving their platform for entire years.

There was more at the time than just Apple and Microsoft. iPhone also quickly supplanted Palm and Blackberry and assorted feature phones. Android was not yet out, but after seeing iPhone Google completely redesigned Android to be much more iPhone-like.

So it seems it either has to be Apple really did do something brilliant and revolutionary, or everyone else was dumb as a bag'o'hammers.

I definitely see your point: Android re-designed and stayed in the game against Apple, while Palm, Blackberry, Nokia, etc. did not re-design immediately - just like Windows Mobile - and failed.

But that does not automatically mean that Apple was (literally) brilliant and (genuinely) revolutionary, it only means that Apple was right in their decision to obsessively prioritize "simplified, polished and packaged" over everything else. Being excellent at product development, manufacturing and marketing does not automatically make a company brilliant and revolutionary. I guess it depends on how you define "brilliant" and "revolutionary", but as far as I can tell Apple rather rarely invented something truly "never seen before". (The only iPhone innovation that really made me go "WOW!" was the dot-less, curve-ful retina display. Now THAT was an idea, indeed, "never seen before".)

It seems to me that while Apple of course did do something right (although not necessarily brilliant and revolutionary), everyone else (except Android) was indeed dumb as a bag'o'hammers. For years they failed to significantly improve their platforms to remain competitive and that was all it took for Apple to win.

>He's most certainly an important historical figure of our time

According to what metric?

> He's most certainly an important historical figure of our time

I wouldn't call him that. He's in second/third leaguer at best. His impact on the world was minor. He deserves biographies for sure (people with much less accomplishments get them as well), but let's not compare him to his contemporaries who were truly important historical figures of that time, like Nelson Mandela or Lech Wałęsa - people who radically changed lives of tens of millions of people.

In general, impact made by individual businesspeople is not that great, because all they do is follow market trends, which makes them fungible -i.e. if Jobs didn't push Apple to make iPhone, some other company would come up with the smartphone later on (the next step in technical/scientific progress is a logical consequence of the previous steps and is usually spotted by multiple companies/people at the same time).

Whereas in politics, the world is not an unidirectional march towards more progress, and, depending on actual leaders, things can get much better or much worse. So, a given leader makes much more of a difference. For example, if Hitler didn't want German race to dominate the world and didn't start WWII, tens millions of people would not have died - that's a huge impact in comparison. The Nazi party and even WWII could still happen without Hitler existing (somebody else might start the party to harvest all the German resentment of that period), but perhaps he'd be less rabid than Hitler, which would result in much less death - hence the actual delta of Hitler is huge. Even deltas of vanilla American presidents are much greater than Jobs'.

For better or worse, I think he embodied the tech culture of our time more than anyone else. My bet is that he will be remembered as a capital figure for putting half of the planet on a smartphone, which is a huge cultural change (not necessarily a good one, but still). If he's "second/third leaguer at best", who would you put in the first league?

Like I wrote, for example Nelson Mandela lived in the same period and had much more impact.

> My bet is that he will be remembered as a capital figure for putting half of the planet on a smartphone

He may be remembered for that, but that's because people's poor ability to assess real impact. Similarly, far more people know about Elon Musk than about Norman Borlaug - with the latter being much more impactful.

He'll be remembered just as much as we remember the railroad barons; which is too say, not that much. Such is tech.

Why does Jobs command such rabid adulation?

He was an asshole, so vain that he would get a new car every X number of months just so that he could be the guy without license plates, and so selfish he wouldn't give one of those dozens of cars to his daughter whom he refused to acknowledge.

So he made popular products, big deal.

What a disgusting human being he was.

Please don't post unsubstantive comments. This comment consists of fulmination, name-calling, and shallow dismissal, so it's unsubstantive in multiple ways.

You may not owe Steve Jobs better, but you owe this community much better if you're participating in it. Please review the rules and stick to them:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

What a disgusting human being he was.

The world is not black and white. There is no clear cut delineation between the 'good' and the 'bad'. We live in a world of subtly and nuance, where people can do good things while also doing immensely shitty things. Jobs was a fantastic business leader. He was instrumental in the founding and running of several wildly successful companies (Apple, Next, Pixar, and Apple again). His vision for Apple products shaped a decade of tech and continues to affect product design long after he passed away. He was the epitome of what makes a brilliant CEO.

He was an asshole. No doubt. He was an asshole who got some amazing things done though. You don't have to like him to recognize that, and you don't have to like him to want to learn about, and even emulate, the admirable bits.

I guess your opinion on Steve Jobs depends on whether you think being a great business leader is measured mostly by how much profit they generate, or some more vague metrics that also consider how they achieve those profits. There's no right answer there - people have been arguing about it for centuries.

There are a lot of legendary figures throughout all of history, who made enormous contributions to the world, and in many different ways, who were all assholes. That has nothing to do with it.

Don't forget the wannabe CEOs that borrow and mimic all of his persona and style that he created.

I cringe every time someone turns up to me 'the engineer' to give their own 'Jobs lecture' of their 'new app idea'.

Bonus points if they turn up a turtle neck.

Not to mention an honest autobiography would have to mention his elevator interviews and how he interacted with his employees. I know quite a few of the people that worked for him and had nothing but bad things to say. Perhaps history favors the positive attributes of a person. I hope this is true for my sake.

I certainly don't adore him, but would probably read a good biography about him _because_ he is such a controversial figure.

I mean the officially authorized biography, which in my opinion shows Steve Jobs as a real asshole, is a good read.

Where is the adulation in OP's question?

A person doesn't have to be likeable to be worth reading or learning about.

He didn’t want a license plate so people wouldn’t know which car was his and it would be harder to stalk him.

He didn’t give them away because they were leased and you have to return them at the end of the lease.

There’s plenty to criticize about Jobs and no shortage of criticism, but at least get your facts right.

Everyone knew it was his car because he had the signature mark of NOT having a license plate. The ultimate vanity of vanity plates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanity_plate

In California you have up to 6 months after buying a car to register it and get a plate. There are tons of cars driving around without license plates.

That means you effectively have six months of immunity against speed trap cameras?

I suppose. Most people probably register the car sooner rather than waiting until the last minute and risking penalties for having an unregistered car just to maybe avoid a few speeding tickets.

If I recall correctly, he got a nee Mercedes every 6 months to avoid having any licenseplates which in turn allowed him to dodge parking tickets.

>He didn’t want a license plate so people wouldn’t know which car was his and it would be harder to stalk him.

Then why did he always get the same model of Mercedes?

Plenty of successful people drive a Mercedes SL55 AMG. It was common enough not to be worth following.

Oh here comes the internet judge. Jobs was given away by his parents when he was a baby which affected his idea what parenting meant to be to his daughter. He later reconciled with her. Things are not so simple.

It sounds like you need to read or reread Walter Isaacson's biography on Steve.

Sure he was an asshole, but there is still a lot to be learned from the man.

I prefer to think about "Steve" as little as possible.

Yet you are here pumping out comments. Surely you can’t get him out of your head. Such devotion.

Sorry. I glossed over reading your whiny complaints.

> Why does Jobs command such rabid adulation?

Why? Because he was interesting and strange. He tapped in to the zeitgeist and ran circles around all other tech hardware companies. He pushed his teams, other companies and society to bend to his influence. His company did things people didn’t think was possible. In fact, with the iPhone, the culmination of all of his projects, he made every other tech CEO look like complete assholes. All cellphones, all telcos, and everyone that didn’t have an iPhone all of the sudden looked slightly lame.

Your comment has ‘woke’ undertones, and I am So Over It

Not every historically significant person is nice or fair. Some of them were truly mean spirited, some did things in their past we now consider wrong. That doesn’t mean you get to cancel them from history. Stop trying to control everyone’s objectivity. I decide what is interesting, fascinating and bizarre for myself. Steve Jobs was interesting.

There is something truly awful in everyone’s past. It’s just a matter of if we found out about it before we decide to cancel you, too.

Flamewar comments like this are not cool, regardless of how bad someone else's comments are or you feel they are. If you'd please review the rules and stick to them, we'd appreciate it: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Note this one:

"Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: it looks like you've unfortunately been in the habit of breaking the site guidelines, including egregiously, like here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28774298

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28774244

We ban accounts that post like that. I don't want to ban you, so please edit out any swipes, name-calling, and attacks that make it into your comments going forward. (You may find it helpful to set 'delay' in your profile to give you time to review them and edit them—that's what I do.)

Dang, you may remember I asked you to wipe out and delete my account months ago. [1] You didn't and wouldn't. Needless to say it left me disappointed in HN and you personally. You insist that a full deletion of my account would ruin the readability of HN, therefore you will not comply. This is my writing that you are reading. I should have the right to remove my creations if I so chose, or at least edit them one by one, including but not exclusive to name calling. I have no tolerance for garbage reasoning by some of the users you allow to exist here. I have no time for them either. My recent candor reflects that.

I have lost faith in NH because of your administration choices. My rhetoric reflects that lost of faith. If you ban me, fine. I sleep well at night, but I demand you delete my comments as well. I demand it! Once you delete my comment and account, ban me, please.

My words are mine. My comments are mine. If I chose to be forgotten and deleted, that should be and is my choice. My personal freedoms, my writing and my copyright are more important that your HN readability.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23622865

Reply on news.ycombinator.com