The fact that OP had to mention "I rejected a recruiter email" means he is utterly clueless about what it takes from Recruiters email to offer-in-hand and 99.9% will be rejected by Amazon
This thread is discussing Amazon's employment practices. The fact that someone refuses to consider employment at Amazon due to those practices is on topic. Your assumption that they don't understand what it takes to be hired by Amazon is insulting and uncalled for.
But again, it doesn't matter. Requiring people to have applied, then been accepted to work at Amazon in order for their comments on Amazon's labor practices to be relevant to the discussion means you have inherently limited the discussion to people interested in working at Amazon despite their labor practices. Anyone who isn't interested, due to, say, their labor practices, isn't going to spend countless hours going through the exhausting process of getting an offer. Why would they? They aren't interested.
The analogy is 100% on point in regards to the social significance of the interaction, there being none.
Again, "I won't work at X because Y" in a conversation about X doing Y is pretty clearly on-topic.
You're literally holding a up a comment that doesn't even reference the practice they didn't like as "on topic."
Is it because they are going back to the office, because they changed their mind, because it's 3 days a week, because the communication was an email? Who knows. There's no there there. It's a garden variety expression of dislike.
Between the article and the comment, there's more than enough context to infer that the reason they didn't reply is they predicted the heel turn on remote work.
If comments relying on reader inference instead of fully specifying context is an issue, you don't have time to chat with me, there's TONS of other comments you need to address.
What comment? (Requires context)
> both insightful and on-topic?
Both? (Requires context, which you may want to re-examine.)
> while at the same time requiring context to interpret.
How is this in conflict with being insightful and on-topic? (Requires inference)
You failed to meet your own bar, which isn't surprising. Yes, pretty much all of human conversation requires context and inference. That's not "pedantic nonsense".
> It's obvious you are digging into meaningless topics for the purposes of trolling.
I'm not the one defending a comment that boils down to "yeah well, you have no idea how recruiting works and probably aren't good enough for Amazon anyway".
My position in this thread boils down to two things:
1) The original comment was a pretty banal and run of the mill comment that did not call for belittling the commenters worldliness or skill set. At worst it called for a down-vote.
2) Comparing working at Amazon to dating an A-list celebrity is a poor analogy for reasons including but not limited to:
* Actions taken by the celebrity vs Amazon
* The differences in exclusivity of the two
* The clear paths available to working at Amazon vs dating the celebrity
* The number of users in the forum known to do one vs the other.
If you want to be done, be done. I didn't drag you back here. HN doesn't even notify on replies. All you have to do is not check the thread. But I'm under no obligation to leave your parting insult unchallenged.