don't tell someone that you know more about a situation that they were in and you were not. A) it's freaking rude as hell, and B) you absolutely DO NOT have more awareness about this situation than the person who lived it.
Having said that, I wasn’t insulted by the parent, and they made a good point: my decision was based on pragmatism, and in the case of Twitter, this was much less likely to be the case. Since I decided to share my story in light of this whole Twitter debacle, the parent was right to point out that the comparison isn’t entirely correct, even more so when it’s about dozens of billions. The rules of the games are different there.
If twitter won and was in the position to compel performance, is that even in the best interest of the company? To force it upon an unwilling owner would be the best way to destroy it in very short order as they desperately attempt to recoup their costs.
Far more sensible, with an enforceable order in hand, to come up with a negotiated settlement. Far easier, as well, with a nuclear option.
An outsider can always offer a new perspective and they could be more knowledgeable than the person who went through the experience.
The parent definitely was factual and correct, but the tone made it sound a bit as if they thought my reasons for doing so were incorrect. That would be a bit of a stretch, and I think that’s what was bothering @naikrovek
Who do you think had the best perspective on the situation? The person who went through the litigation, had lawyers, knew all the details of the case and made the decision of the poster sending a canned five lines reply based on a paragraph?
It does take much awareness to realise that sending an abrasive reply when you are in no position to do so might be ill received by the community (well at least the quickly diminishing part who wants to have an interesting discussion).
An outsider is just as likely to be an arrogant fool, and an arrogant fool is more likely to find skepticism offensive than a normal person. There are plenty of people, even on Hacker News, who assume that they are by default more knowledgeable than anybody else, and therefore are obliged to look at any given situation, opine, and set the record straight. Other people don't matter, and certainly their 'experiences' won't count. So, it's not surprising or offensive to run into the 'water squirt bottle of correction', where kitty gets unexpectedly hit with the message 'opining on experience you've never experienced disqualifies you as a first class advice giver'.
Chesterton's Fence is of course the idea that, if you encounter a fence and you don't know what it's for, you don't take it down until you do know what the fence was for. People tend to get worked up about the things they see that, to them, seem to be there for no reason, and advocate all the more vigorously for removing such things when to them, the existence of the thing is obvious nonsense with no possible justification… they would rather think that a thing was done by a total fool who's so inferior to them as to be hopelessly incapable, than consider the idea that their superiority might be questionable.
It's more like someone coming upon their neighbor complaining about a mutual neighbor and their fence and offering them advice for the next confrontation with the neighbor.
I've learnt not to critique other peoples designs without a full understanding. The designer probably would have changed a few things if they had a second attempt. Unknown and usually silly requirements can play a big part in design that you as an outsider are unaware of. I've learnt to assume competence rather than incompetence. At the time, there was likely a very good reason for such a decision.
In the same vein as “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”, “never attribute to engineering that which is adequately explained by finance” :)
If the outsider is making general claims about similar sorts of situations, then sure. If they're predicting the behavior of someone unknown to them, but well known to the OP, then not so much.
A good coach has zero impact on their players that actually experience the game?