Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

He specifies that he was there over 20 years, prior to the company being incorporated, and only joined full-time in 2002.

That being said: David Drummond is a terrible person[0], who only has been there this long because of Larry Page and Sergey Brin's protection, because they are terrible people too[1][2]. The way Google's highest executives have treated women is disgusting and inexcusable. And while Drummond may not be getting an exit package, he sold off $200 million in stock this past year.

Evil is still very, very good business.

[0] https://medium.com/@jennifer.blakely/my-time-at-google-and-a...

[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/google-sergey-brin-employees...

[2] https://fossbytes.com/larry-page-andy-rubin-150m-sexual-hara...

View on HN

Please keep the "terrible person" trope off HN. The online call-out culture is good for shaming and indignation, but it wrecks curious conversation. Here we want curious conversation.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Does this extend to conversations about Trump as well?

Two answers. First: sure it does. It's not about the person, it's about ourselves and what things like personal attacks do to the community [1].

The second answer is more pragmatic: in practice, it's much easier to simply ask "please don't take HN threads into partisan flamewar" [2]. Everyone understands that. If we say "please don't do personal attacks" or "please don't do online shaming" about a major political figure, people mistake that for an expression of political support and object sharply. It's not worth the confusion, and I only have so much energy for explaining that it doesn't mean we're Trump supporters or communists or whatever.

[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

> After our son was born, I received a call from HR notifying me that one of us would have to leave the legal department where David was now Chief Legal Officer (...)

This sounds like the worst possible policy I can think of. Get pregnant from your boss, and HR kicks you from the team! How does that help anyone?

> How does that help anyone?

It helps the boss, of course.

The right way to implement a policy like that is to say that supervisors are not permitted to have relationships with their subordinates. That way, if such a relationship develops against the rules, it's clear upon whom the consequences should fall: the supervisor.

Supervisors get more money and power from the organization than their subordinates, so it's fair for the organization to have higher expectations for the behavior of the supervisor than the subordinate.

Supervisors also have more skin in the game so, quite trivially, making the supervisor responsible also means it's inherently easier to enforce that policy! The fact that they'd try to shift that burden onto the subordinate just tells you how much they care about following the rules, i.e. not at all.

Agreed, but a bigger factor is the power differential, IMO: the boss has the higher need to maintain at least an image of impartiality, and it's harder for the subordinate to resist advances knowing that the giver is key in deciding when they can and can't get time off, pay rises, etc.

Great point.

Google had one that said exactly that when I joined in 2009, but that post-dates the alleged affair(s) here, so I wouldn't be surprised if it was introduced directly because of this.

Drummond wasn't the only one engaged in such shenanigans, too - I can think of at least half a dozen executives (including both founders) who engaged in relationships within their reporting chain.

> Get pregnant from your boss

There isn't much anyone can do to prevent disaster after this.

It's not a punishment, it's to prevent nepotism and moral hazard. I think normally they will try to place you in the same role in some other project but that may not have been possible in this case(?)

The way you implement that is by proactively asking for a transfer before the relationship comes to light. If you don't do that, this is essentially proof that you were seeking to abuse the situation in some way hence penalties (on the supervisor, see my side comment) are very much appropriate.

No, it's punishment.

It's not down out of cruelty, it's done out of greed. He's more important, so even though he should absolutely 1000% be the one on the chopping block, she gets forced to sales. Then he uses the financial hardship and promises from him to get her to quit.

How to tidy up a disastrous bit of professional misconduct in just a few easy completely sociopathic steps.

They knew the relationship was against company policy from the get go, what did they think was going happen? Two people made a poor decision and have to live with the consequences?

> aware that our relationship was in violation of Google’s new policy which went from “discouraging” direct-reporting-line relationships to outright banning them.

Both people knew it was wrong, but Larry and Sergey's best buddy got promoted to become one of the most powerful executives on the planet and paid hundreds of millions of dollars, and the woman got pushed out of her job and left to support their kid herself.

She was forced out because it was against company policy. She wasnt forced out of google, but to a different department. And she voluntarily quit google, she was never fired. It's a sad story, but it's just adults making their own decisions that don't work out.

> so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they required because likewise, I wanted to protect him

And David wasn't forced out for violating company policy because...? He's a man? He's Larry and Sergey's friend?

No one was forced out, HR said one of them had to leave. We dont know anything beyond that she was the one to change departments. She wasnt fired.

She worked for him in the legal department. If she's asked to change departments, what's someone presumably trained and skilled in law going to do? Start coding? Run a product team? Do sales?

Right, she had affair with her boss at a company where there was a clear policy against it. What was she supposed to do? Maybe think ahead and realize this is a bad idea, OR realize there are potential consequences for making said decisions. Regardless when google found out they did not fire her, they gave her a chance to continue employment at the company. I dont know what her qualifications were but if she managed to get hired at google I would imagine she could also find work relatively easily outside of google.

>aware that our relationship was in violation of Google’s new policy which went from “discouraging” direct-reporting-line relationships to outright banning them

Dude just fades into the background, a fact she must make choices around, and anyway she must have landed OK, right?

Amazing how senior execs in powerful places selectively lose agency.

Usually in these situations the onus should be on the senior colleague, because, besides the increased expectations of seniority, they have the power to punish a junior colleague for refusing sexual advances.

> She was forced out because it was against company policy

> No one was forced out

He forced the consequences onto her.

None of these men will ever actually face consequences. They are all obscenely wealthy and well connected.

What did he force onto her?

Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally abusive sociopath.

Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises of financial support, then left her with the baby and refused to pay.

I can't even comprehend the type of person who doesn't see the cruelty of this man. She trusted the wrong person, that doesn't justify his behavior.

I agree hes probably a terrible person, but I just dont see where he is abusing his power at Google. He didn't pressure her into a relationship, he didnt force himself upon her, didnt threaten her job if she didnt cooperate, he didnt pressure her into leaving, she even says so in the article. These both sound like people of poor judgement, I just dont see the abuse people are trying to levy.

> so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they required because likewise, I wanted to protect him

> Well she's stuck raising the son of an emotionally abusive sociopath.

She decided to have a child and she decided to raise them. These are choices she made. He decided he doesn't want to take part in raising his son.

It sounds like you want her to get all the pros and him all the cons in this situation. But their decisions have both pros and cons for both of them. Her decision means she gets to have a family/child (at the cost of the work/money needed to raise a child). His decision means he's a bad father who will his son will likely always hate but it has its financial advantages.

> Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises of financial support, then left her with the baby and refused to pay. > > I can't even comprehend the type of person who doesn't see the cruelty of this man. She trusted the wrong person, that doesn't justify his behavior.

Yes, he's a cruel liar. Probably most people would be if given the opportunity (yes I'm a cynic and I don't believe in natural/native human kindness) but I'm not trying to make excuses for him. From the article he seems like a terrible person. But so what, that's not illegal. In the end what are we trying to achieve by pointing this out?

There are people who aren't cruel liars and who manage to make their companies truly great and beloved. "Don't do what is illegal" is not "don't be evil" and being evil will make it harder to organize the worlds information, and harder to get a long sustained effort from others to help with that task.

>Besides that he pressured her into quitting with promises of financial support, then left her with the baby and refused to pay.

California doesn't have child support? If he's not in his child's life he's a scumbag but at the very least I'm assuming the child is getting a very generous financial contribution.

From her blog post she did eventually get a custody arrangement which requires he pay substantial (in her words) child support.

From the article, he lied and as a consequence of the lie extended a sexual relationship with a person. Then when his actions (among other things) had created a new human, he behaved in a way most people recognize as badly. This narrative clearly depicts a despicable person. If you are happy with a lot of powerful institutions being controlled by and for despicable people, then by all means, there's no issue. However, it's a common trend for despicable people to run institutions into the ground rather than create a happy institution that ends up realizing the "transform humanity for the better" vision that so many profess.

He tricked her into having a baby with him, then abandoned them financially and emotionally.

> He tricked her into having a baby with him

Come on now, these are consenting adults. She wasn't a child getting tricked. She was a grown woman who had consensual sex, didn't take birth control or use protection, and choose to take the pregnancy to term.

In her blog post she says that they had a long relationship, decided to have a baby, and after the baby was born he began another affair and left her to care for the baby alone.

I wouldn't say "he tricked her into having a baby", but it's not exactly nice to leave someone after a baby was born and not provide any support at all (she had to fight him in the court for child support).

During manager training done by any lawyer worth their salt, it is drilled into you two hundred times that if you start a relationship with a subordinate, you have to declare this relationship to HR, you have to move jobs, and that you may be personally liable for any of the legal fallout that comes with workplace relationships/allegations of harassment/allegations of nepotism.

It seems that the execs don't get the same kind of training that line managers get. Or, perhaps, they are protected from the consequences. One set of rules for me, another for you...

I wonder what they would have said if her response had been, "OK, David can leave. I'm fine right here." It's hardly like they could fire her for refusing to leave her job after her boss knocked her up. Unfortunately all these kinds of hypotheticals that come up in these situations are impossible to test, because the person without power always has too much on the line to stand up and fight.

Oh wow.

> David would go for months or even years at a time completely ignoring my pleas to see his son — not even so much as a text to us, despite living about a mile away.

I can see not having the desire to be with her and break up the relationship, but abandoning his child and not seeing them for years at a time is downright evil.

It's so strange to hear how Google touts itself to be at the forefront of inclusivity and tolerance, and here their executive acting this way for decades and nobody does anything.

What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with? A woman with an unwanted pregnancy can abort. Men don't have that option. But that doesn't obligate them to an emotional bond with the child.

Read the article - he wanted the son until he didn't, and then he peaced out.

Okay - "evil" may have been a touch too strong.

I'll go with "scummy and reprehensible".

And: "deeply at odds with the ethical standards that Google once claimed to stand for (not that we ever took them seriously when they said those things)."

I can endorse scummy and reprehensible.

Do we really want companies firing employees for personal morality issues that have zero bearing on their ability to do their job?

No, we don't. But we do want companies firing employees for personal morality issues which have bearing on their ability to their job.

> What is "evil" about not wanting to see a child that you presumably didn't want to begin with?

The child doesn't get a choice about being brought into the world, so your desire or intent to produce a child is irrelevant. If you don't want to father a child, don't do anything that could reasonably lead to producing a child. If you father one anyway, that's on you. To deliberately alienate yourself from your child in that way, especially when you have the wealth and resources he does, is evil in my opinion.

And yet, we generally accept that women have the right to an abortion regardless of their willfully chosen actions prior. How do you square the two positions? Note that I'm not arguing that the man has a right to absolve himself of financial responsibility.

An abortion doesn't result in a person so it's not really comparable. My understanding is that the vast majority of surgical or medical abortions occur due to either 1) grave risk to the mother's life 2) serious genetic defects or malformities in the fetus or 3) well before viability (during a time when spontaneous abortions are also common)

Basing a principle of rights or duties based on contingencies (live birth or not) seems dubious. If the mother has a right to decide against the burden of a child, the father should as well (all things being equal). Granted, all things aren't equal, but the financial obligation seems sufficient to fulfill a duty to the living child. Besides, why should we force contact when the father doesn't want it? I don't see that as benefiting the child.

> If the mother has a right to decide against the burden of a child, the father should as well (all things being equal).

This is your false premise. Nothing about fairness requires the law to give someone additional rights to offset someone else’s intrinsic advantages. Neither men nor women have a “legal right to decide against the burden of a child.” If either has a child, they’re on the hook for it. The law doesn’t need to give men an additional legal right to “make up” for the fact that women can terminate a pregnancy by exercising their natural right to control their own pregnancies.

I'm talking about what should be the case, i.e. what is a moral right or duty. Legal concerns just add extra complication that are tangential to my claims.

I am not talking about what the law is, but rather what fairness requires the law to be. Fairness doesn’t necessarily require giving one sex more legal rights (allowing men to disavow parental obligations) to make up for a biological limitation (inability to terminate a pregnancy).

I just don't know how to respond meaningfully when you mix moral and legal concerns. Regarding fairness, I don't see disavowing parental obligation as more legal rights. Women can give their child up for adoption after all.

There is nothing that needs to be squared. People are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions. We hold women and men equally accountable when their having sex produces a child.

The fact that women, by virtue of their right to control their own bodies, can abort a baby before it is born, doesn’t change the analysis for either. Both are still responsible for a baby that is born. The fact that the woman has additional options to avoid the consequence doesn’t absolve the man of responsibility (both to provide financial support and to be a father). Women may have many reasons for not aborting a baby. (Maybe they even believe it’s morally wrong!) But if you take action that predictably may result in an outcome, you don’t get off the hook because someone else had the power to avert the outcome at a later stage and chose not to. Both people are responsible.

>The fact that the woman has additional options to avoid the consequence doesn’t absolve the man of responsibility

I disagree. Having more options does in fact alter the level of responsibility.

> The child doesn't get a choice about being brought into the world, so your desire or intent to produce a child is irrelevant. If you don't want to father a child, don't do anything that could reasonably lead to producing a child. If you father one anyway, that's on you.

That's on a man no more than it's on a women if she gets pregnant and the previous agreement was that the guy had to use condoms and he didn't. Otherwise what you're saying is "if you don't want to get STDs or have kids never have sex". Luckily that's not how the law works.

People routinely get pregnant despite using hormonal birth control. (Condoms are even less effective.) The purpose of sex is having kids, and unsurprisingly humans are very good at conception. If you don’t want to have kids, don’t have sex.

>If you don’t want to have kids, don’t have sex.

How do you square this with your claim in a sister comment of "by virtue of their right to control their own bodies can abort a baby before it is born"

Someone may not want to have a kid and also object to having an abortion for any number of personal and/or religious reasons.

Factually there's no contradiction. But in terms of principles, there seems to be a tension.

> The people in Google’s legal department were very close and in 2004, at my birthday party at the W in San Francisco, David reserved a suite to host an “after party.” It was there, that night he told me how he wanted more children. I urged to him to have one with his wife but he demurred and said that would never happen because he was estranged from her, which admittedly I already knew — he was the only married one in attendance without his spouse.

The kid was, in fact, David's idea from the get-go. He lamented at a party to a then-just-coworker about how badly he wanted more children. Of course, whether or not that was just his move to try to get a woman into an affair with him or not, we have no way of knowing.

Holy crap, that is some story.

Well, she thought that he'd marry, and stay faithful to her. She knew the deal, should be happy with child support...the rest is bitter grapes

You clearly did not read the linked article.

Yes, this is a woman who entered a relationship and it didnt work out. Ive definitely read it and this is not a #metoo story. He didnt force himself up on, he didnt take advantage of her, he didnt threaten her, he didnt demand she date him, it's about dating someone at work when there are clear rules around it. No one said she had to leave the department, but that one of them would have to leave. It's a tragically sad story, especially for the child, but this was two consenting adults in an adult relationship that was full of bad choices.

Well, then maybe you read the story but did not understand it. That's fine with me, but I did read the story and that is not my takeaway at all.

For starters, there is a clear abuse of power here with one party being the senior person at the company suggesting that things will be 'ok' when clearly there was a plan all along to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency, followed up with a lot of very mean and manipulative action.

Besides using the child as leverage against the mother there is a clear - and continuous - act in the self interest of the dominant party, more wealthy, still employed and willing to use every dirty tactic in the book and a couple I'd never even seen before against the other.

Utterly revolting and not simply 'two consenting adults in an adult relationship full of bad choices'. That's victim blaming at its worst.

An abuse of power? They had an affair, how was that a plan to create a situation of asymmetry and dependency? How did she not know this was a bad idea all along? Did she think a person willing to cheat on a spouse was going to be a good person down the road?

> David and I began an affair shortly after that night and we were together for years.

She made a bad choice in life. She had an affair with a married man that worked in her department, when she knew such a relationship was against company policy. No one said she had to leave the department, only that one of them had to.

Everything that happened after, while terribly cruel, is not anything you dont see frequently when a relationship falls apart that involves children. It's very sad story but I am not victim blaming anyone, they are both at fault. But they both willingly went into this situation with their eyes open knowing full well what the consequences could be.

I don't get this "abuse of power" angle at all. Having a relationship with a subordinate is not an abuse of power. Insisting that your job rests on a relationship is an abuse of power, but without evidence that happened (and it seems like it didnt), there's no abuse. This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense.

The fact is, people spend half or more of their waking hours at work. You spend more time with your colleagues than you do your own family in many cases. Relationship are going to happen. We need to learn how to deal with it rather than try to codify rules against it.

The abuse of power is that he maneuvered her into a position of dependency, then bailed out and used the fact that she was now dependent on him against her.

Maneuvered implies intent. How do you know that was his intention from the start?

Well, it certainly didn't happen by accident. Fathers should support their kids, period.

"One of us needs to leave. If you leave, I'll take care of you financially, since I'm making far more money here".

"Oh, you left, thanks. Oh, that financial help? I changed my mind about that".

It's possible to be abusive in a myriad of ways.

> This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense.

Why? Seems pretty sound to me.

Because power differentials do not invalidate consent? Power differentials do not indicate coercion and people are fully capable of consenting even in the presence of power differentials. We've gotten to the point where we equate potential for abuse with abuse. Its a little ridiculous.

Surely you agree that sometimes power differentials can invalidate consent. Can sex between a police officer and another person that they have placed under arrest be consensual?

I don't think a power differential in itself invalidates consent. In your example I would say the scenario of an arrest is inherently coercive. But this is just quibbling over semantics.

What's the fundamental difference between an employer / employee relationship (where economic power can be wielded) and a police office / arestee relationship (where legal power can be weilded)?

What makes the latter "inherently coercive" but not the former?

Aren't these just different degrees of fundamentally the same thing?

I don't think so. With a police officer/arrestee relationship, coercive power is already being wielded. Being detained is inherently coercive. Any "request" from an officer acting in an official capacity is done with the implied backing of state power, and being arrested clearly establishes the coercive relationship.

But employment is transactional. There is an expectation that the agreed upon transaction will be upheld. A request that falls outside of the transaction, e.g. your boss asking you out, does not inherently imply economic coercion (whereas a request within the employment transaction does). But specifics of the context can alter that, i.e. wording of the request or specific context can imply coercion.

Consent is the minimum required for sex to not be rape. That doesn’t mean the relationship is ethical.

I don't know of a scenario where I would say a relationship is unethical if consent is satisfied. What scenario do you have in mind?

Adulterous relationships. Incestuous relationships. Relationships between professors and students. Relationships based on economic or employment coercion. Relationships in the workplace, even if not coerced, that could result in favoritism prejudicial to others. Again, consent merely distinguishes rape from non-rape. There are many degrees of wrong and unethical conduct short of the outright criminal.

Some of those are fair points (scenarios issues involving external people), although considering the context of this discussion I was referring to ethical concerns between the two parties involved in the relationship. Coercion of various sorts negates consent in my book.

I’ll add to the list: doctor-patient, lawyer-client, judge-lawyer, judge-litigant, social worker-charge, police-detainee, prison guard-prisoner, etc., even in contexts where there is no actual coercion. There is more to relationship ethics than consent. You have to consider the ethics in the context of the other relationships between the parties. Lawyers engaging in relationships with their clients is in fact an ethical violation, regardless of consent, because of the possibility of or appearance of abusing the lawyer-client relationship. Relationships necessarily also affect third parties (other partners, coworkers, etc.) Those effects must be considered too. People owe each other (not just partners, but third parties) more than just not committing rape.

>>> This idea that a power differential invalidates a relationship is nonsense.

Why? Seems pretty sound to me.

Pretty demeaning to a mature woman, smart enough to be hired by Google. Maybe we should have a male guardian sign off on such things? just to be sure?

Do you think he got the same phone call saying one of them had to leave?

This situation is fucked up on multiple levels.

You don't punish the subordinate. Given his level, he should have been out.

Instead they transferred her from legal to sales and her performance tanked because it was a job she was in no way qualified to do.

He got her to quit (and sign a bunch of forms) promising to support her, then bailed.

He refused child support and after she sued, he started using threats against her kid to fuck with her.

This is a woman who got into a relationship, then realized that not only was the guy a complete psycho but the company had his back because he's the important one.

The rot at google is very real. Top down too.

He did not get her to quit, she made that choice herself because she wanted to protect him. She made that choice. Yes he is a terrible person, yes possibly psycho and this story sucks but no one forced anything.

> so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they required because likewise, I wanted to protect him

Is rape the only thing that companies should fire people for? A pattern of relationships like this is quite likely to be very bad for Google, both in terms of settlements and in terms of lost morale and acceptance of shitty behavior instead of working together on the great common project. The question isn't "forced" it's "why is firing the subordinate done instead of firing the habitual asshole when it's clearly in the companies interests to fire the habitual asshole." And the answer to that question makes it plausible that Google has been protecting bad people at the cost of their idealistic but achievable missions.

Also, she may have made that choice, but also he "got" her to quit - not sure if you've been in a relationship, but both things can be true. Someone can influence you to make a bad choice. The responsibility for that bad choice then exists in both people.

She wasnt fired. And she quit on her own volition.

I can't speak to a pattern of bad behavior because I just dont know more than this story and the one she posted about. He absolutely sounds like human garbage, but her story isn't a #metoo story. There was no abuse, no abuse of power, no forcing anything.

> so I quit Google, signing whatever documents they required because likewise, I wanted to protect him.

> And the answer to that question makes it plausible that Google has been protecting bad people at the cost of their idealistic but achievable missions.

Which of googles missions is idealistic?

... because he had promised her financial support and if he also lost his job, that would go away.

And then he withdrew / refused support, that he'd agreed to, in writing.

Yes, it's not all black and white, but it's close to willfully obtuse to see a timeline of events and then fall back to a definition of "well, he didn't hold a gun to her head/use physical violence so it wasn't really a forced situation".

I agree he's a horrible person, but all those things have nothing to do with Google and his position at Google or her position at Google. Those were relationship decisions they made on their own. They both made horrible personal decisions, but it doesn't involve google.

Except he was her boss at google, google forced her into a position she didn't want, and he encouraged her to quit under false pretenses.

This is a high level google executive engaging in grossly unprofessional behavior with one of his employees. It's abuse of both power and trust. As far as I'm concerned the judgement and behavior shown by him should make him completely untouchable.

I did but I don't take her comments after the disappointment at face value. How dare a married, billionaire cheater not settle down with her but continue to sleep with other women?

She was an adult that entered in a consenting relationship with a married man (I can guess why), she admitted so much. Google policy or not, is irrelevant since both sides knew the deal.

It's not irrelevant, it's a blatant abuse of power.

This guy is clearly a pretty sick sort of predator.

> How dare a married, billionaire cheater not settle down with her but continue to sleep with other women?

He basically got her fired and then bailed on her and their son. He refused to pay child support despite being a millionaire and is basically in an abusive relationship with her still.

It's disgusting. It's the sort of behaviour that should ruin your personal and professional life completely.

>>This guy is clearly a pretty sick sort of predator.

Maybe he was the prey. You cannot refuse to pay child support, it's one option you do not have. Play hard ball in response to stuff etc maybe, but you will pay in the end.

She should have named her price upfront. All consensual and he is a d*ck and a moron in a sense, as a billionaire, he could have used his pocket change and made her happy $$ wise. Now he gets bad press.

> Maybe he was the prey.

Yeah maybe. She's the one who wound up being abandoned with a kid though.

> You cannot refuse to pay child support, it's one option you do not have. Play hard ball in response to stuff etc maybe, but you will pay in the end.

Which is what he did. Despite being filthy rich. Then he continued to threaten her visitation rights, screw around with his visitations.

> She should have named her price upfront. All consensual and he is a d*ck and a moron in a sense, as a billionaire, he could have used his pocket change and made her happy $$ wise. Now he gets bad press.

This is the type of comment I was talking about. This just seems dismissive of the cruelty of this situation and deeply lacking in empathy for 3 people in a lousy spot.

> Maybe he was the prey

I assume you're positing that she tried to start an affair and get pregnant for child support? Nobody really knows, and it would be a "he-said-she-said" issue. What we do know is that unless he was raped (and there was no charge made of that sort and didn't happen), he made his choice and can deal with the consequences. If he didn't want to deal with the consequences then he shouldn't have fathered a bastard.

> She should have named her price upfront.

I'd support changing the law, but as it stands today and stood then, that's prostitution and illegal.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com