Hacker News Reader

Precisely, this is some atrocious analysis by Charles Arthur.

I know _ad hominem_ is generally uncalled for, but he's not known for doing anything else. As the Guardian tech editor he had a reputation for showcasing (i.e. Boot Up, which got pretty toxic) and writing articles attacking Android. Most of it based on tedious market analysis.

"I know _ad hominem_ is generally uncalled for, but"

Thus neatly showing how comment threads turn "pretty toxic". If you have better analysis of the data, that would be great to see.

He had opinion pieces by Andrew Orlowski published in The Guardian, I think that says everything you need to know :-)

The fact that you disagree with someone doesn't per se make them wrong.

No, but I tend to consider people who call hardworking Wikipedia editors by the pejorative "wiki-fiddlers" less than reliable, and the man regularly wrote half-truths and sometimes resorted to outright dishonesty.

That you would publish him... Well, that's your judgement but I consider it to be lacking.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com