Hacker News Reader

Comment by jonrussell | Hacker News Reader

Hi, author here, don't usually [ever] comment on my own work here - but am interested to hear if other devs have had similar or contrasting experiences working with LinkedIn.

View on HN

What does "iterates" mean in context? "Pealk has been in contact with lawyers in the event that LinkedIn iterates its own version of the app"

I can't tell if it's misused or I'm missing something.

In this context it can basically mean "improves".

It comes from a recent trend in software development called Agile where new features are added in short cycles e.g. week called an iteration.

In that case, wouldn't it be "iterates on its own (…) app"?

Next iteration/version of their API, i.e. Improved with new funcionality or functionality that got deceased.

I have an issue with your wording.

"Getting free data via LinkedIn's API" != "Working with LinkedIn"

"betrated" should be "betrayed"

In your post, you say "After news of the API cut off, LinkedIn got in touch to suggest a possible trip to its San Francisco HQ" - IIRC, LinkedIn's HQ is in Mountain View, not San Francisco.

From France, there's not so huge a difference, is there? You're still probably flying into SFO.

A factual error is a factual error. Definitely lowers the credibility of the article for me.

That's a foolish and shortsighted way of looking at it. My company's headquarters is in Newton, MA, but if we're flying people in to talk, they universally say "Boston". Because to people not from the area, that's what it is.

Synecdoche is a part of English (San Francisco being the most notable part of Silicon Valley). It may upset the overly pedantic, but...oh well?

I agree with you from the perspective of people of France (or anyone outside the area). And that point is not lost on me.

I am talking about the credibility of the author. The line referenced in the article is written by the author. They are not words attributed to others in a quote. If it's not in a quote, the author takes on the responsibility with respect to the correctness of the fact. If the author can't verify this simple fact, I don't know if I can trust the article with all the one-sided claims presented.

That they can't be troubled to verify facts that don't have any relevance whatsoever to the content of the post should only very weakly effect your expectation of whether they verify facts that are central to the content of the post. Granted, here on the internet, that's not as high a prior as it might be.

I did not downvote you, but I've lived in the US for 11 years, went to different parts of California several times, including a long trip to San Fransisco; to this day I cannot tell you the difference between San Fransisco, Silicon Valley, Mountain View, etc... To me they are really all the same place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com