Chrisann Brennan on Steve Jobs | Hacker News Reader

Chrisann Brennan on Steve Jobs

dailymail.co.uk

37 pointsspking24 comments

Although the tabloid could hardly have framed this article in a viler way, what Brennan actually wrote is reflective and poignant and deserves to be read. If there's another URL we can switch to, we'd be happy to (I tried but couldn't find one).

If you comment on this article, please be charitable and please stick to what's interesting about it.

It appears to be an excerpt from Ms. Brennan's memoir, approved for republication for the Mail: Chrisann Brennan, 2015. "The Bite In The Apple: A Memoir Of My Life With Steve Jobs"

I do not understand the need to be charitable to Steve Jobs.

If he was not the brilliant leader of Apple we would simply say he was a douche bag. Just because he was great in one area does not excuse behaviour in another. Is there any level of business achievement that says that it is ok to have millions whilst the mother of your daughter is struggling to survive whilst bringing up your daughter?

As a business man he was brilliant. As a father he was a loser.

It isn't about excusing anything, but about avoiding tedious tirades. Articles that are interesting enough to be on HN deserve discussion about what they actually say. Being charitable involves stopping and reflecting rather than spewing a prepared statement, which most of us are all too ready to do, especially when given a shot of anger. HN is about seeking to understand, which is not compatible with reciting pre-existing judgments. (Edit: I'm not referring to you here, but to a tendency we all have, which consequently tends to build up in HN threads.)

Brennan's piece struck me as a pretty good example both of seeking to understand and of being charitable without excusing bad behavior. If anyone has reason not to do those things it's her, so I don't see why we can't too.

I feel like going down in history as a great innovator and business leader is far easier than going down in history as a great father, and though I can't say one way or another what his priorities were, you can't completely fault the man for being what his culture values.

He was a disgusting person to have treated people this way. It's mildly annoying that he was also brilliant because people end up rationalizing his faults away.

A lot of people use those types of biographies to justify their own destructive behaviour.

Just checking: You know that a bunch of people took Nazi propaganda, changed the word "Jew" to "migrant", and posted it to the Daily Mail comment section, and that those comments were upvoted by DM readers?

https://medium.com/@bestofthemail/i-was-upvoted-for-posting-...

And, scarily, the Nazi propaganda was mild in contrast to other comments openly calling for the murder of migrants?

Look at the upvotes on these comments: https://twitter.com/DMReporter/status/650656856529092608

DM engages in the worst kind of click-bait. They are the scum of the earth.

Posting links to the Daily Mail on HN is like flinging excrement at your readers.

As I'm sure you know, the relation between article quality and site quality is complicated.

HN's approach is to focus on the quality of the article, because that's what maximizes interestingness for the reader. We penalize sites that mostly produce bad articles, but we override that penalty for the occasional good one, which this is. I'm happy to change the URL if there's a better one but I don't think it makes sense for HN readers not to see Brennan's remarkable piece.

Another point of view: Daily Mail is trashy, but at least it does not display the sanctimony of something like that Medium experiment linked above.

I am fine with it.

I am probably missing something, but I take it you're okay with The Guardian as a source? How is this not clickbait? https://twitter.com/somuchguardian

I do not know if the original commenter(commentator?) is okay with The Guardian as a source, but that twitter account is trash.

Sadly, one thing the original commentor(commentator?) seem to not understand that it's about what's being said, rather than who's saying it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3s-qZsjK8I

You've posted several random comments about Steve Jobs that have nothing to do with this article. Those are not substantive comments. We don't need an "I love Steve" vs. "I hate Steve" discussion here—as generic as it is tedious.

Random?

Yes. This isn't the all about Steve Jobs thread, it's the memoir excerpt by Chrisann Brennan thread. By making the discussion more generic you make it less interesting. Please stick to the content.

whoops, thought context was important.

Also interesting on a related note- "Steve Jobs made Warner Music sue my startup" https://medium.com/startup-study-group/steve-jobs-made-warne...

How Steve Jobs used Carly Fiorina's HP iPod deal to preinstall iTunes on millions of PCs and prevent HP from creating its own iPod competitor http://www.techmeme.com/151004/p7#a151004p7

Ick, ick, ick. I wish I could downvote this. I stopped reading when it became clear what Brennan was doing - betraying a lot of confidences with Jobs to make a lot of money. I believe that he was often genuinely awful, and for all I know, Brennan could have been cheated out of a lot of money. But there are things in here that could hurt Jobs' wife and kids. Brennan should be ashamed.

Almost everything in there has already been reported many times and is well known. She's not 'betraying a lot of confidences' not that she owes much to someone who treated her so poorly.

The abandoned mother of the abandoned child of a multimillionaire is justified in recounting any awful behavior she cares to recount.

"We should not seek revenge on those who have committed crimes against us, or reply to their crimes with other crimes. We should reflect that by the law of karma, they are in danger of lowly and miserable lives to come, and that our duty to them, as to every being, is to help them to rise towards Nirvana, rather than let them sink to lower levels of rebirth." — the Dalai Lama

Is this a religious discussion now? I'm not sure that applies, anyway; ISTM that Jobs is already a dung beetle, or whatever. Besides, TFA is hardly "seeking revenge". The tone isn't even particularly harsh. It's just: here's some shit that dude did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com