We Built a $2M/Year Business Selling Barbecue Tools
starterstory.com
starterstory.com
To expand on that: Atlas shrugged is about purported geniuses being oppressed and denied the freedom to create and make money from their own inventions. But the author didn't create anything, they just slapped a logo on someone else's products.
IOW, Cognitive dissonance between the supposed inspirations of the author and their actual behavior. Just like a certain CEO that just resigned.
EDIT: My only regret is that I didn’t say the above in my original comment. I neglected to consider that not all people may be familiar with the subject.
Picking the weakest thing in an article to complain about breaks the spirit of this guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize." It leads to bad and boring threads. You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be less prominent.
The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity level and is not fine.
Also, you're crossing into personal attack, a whole other thing the HN guidelines require users not to do. We definitely don't need users tearing on other users here!
Apparently not. As for the mediocre discussion, fine.
> You really had to swoop to cherry-pick that detail, which could hardly be less prominent.
Fair enough. I suppose I'm used to being rewarded for reading the entire article.
> The topic here, obviously, was the author's business. Off-topic comments that are whimsical and unpredictable are fine on HN; but going off topic in order to grouch about something, or turn to some generic issue, lowers the curiosity level and is not fine.
Fair enough. Message received. However, I feel compelled to comment that it seems like a potentially worrisome policy. If all controversial topics are avoided unless they are the primary subject of the submission, it seems like it potentially exposes the community to an insidious legitimization of unsavory beliefs. I suppose that's your concern and not mine. I'll stick to the main topic of the article in the future, and minimize the kinds of objections we've discussed to the subtext of my comments, if they're included at all.