OK, but, why? Of all the reasons to disagree with someone -- or, in the case of most of this particular thread, hate them -- "they haven't done something I've heard of" seems like a pretty weak one.
If you found out that he had been behind some kind of huge success, would you agree with him more? Or, if you found out that he was born into money, would that make him more wrong? If he could fill a paper with things that he's done for people you've never heard of, would that make him more credible?
I could understand calling for someone's credentials if they were trying to argue from experience: "I'm a manager and I can tell you that scheduling isn't a difficult problem." "Oh? What do you manage?" "...uhm, a yard cleanup business with my friend." That would be a fair and useful criticism then.
But I didn't get that kind of a vibe from this rant. I just went back and re-read it. (Thanks for that...) Nowhere in this rant can I find anything that even smells like, "Follow me because I have been successful." The closest I can get to that is, "Follow me because I want to be successful", as in things like, "I'm trying. I seem to be getting there. I want you guys to get there." etc. etc.
Maybe it's somewhere else on his site? "Command Flows to the Worthy" sounds like a good candidate, but no, that one's just a short opinion piece and, again, doesn't make the claim that, "I'm right because I'm successful."
You specifically mention being "better than" 99% of the population. OK. Maybe you're referring to, "99% of people you interact with in life are fucking jokers." Well, I don't agree with that -- because I don't want to -- but is it objectively wrong? Given all the posts on HN about how hard it is to find good candidates and how many developers can't pass FizzBuzz and on and on and on, that air of superiority is certainly ubiquitous here. And, if HN represents the cream of the crop of developers and startups and stuff, like it collectively seems to think it does, then is that 99% statement actually wrong? And, even if it is, does it really make any sense to take it literally? Does taking it literally and then brow-beating the literal interpretation of it really change his overall point? I don't think so.
Or, maybe you're talking about the part where he says, "You're all highly skilled, top 1% at your craft." All the same questions apply there, too. Or, "You're all highly intelligent, top 1% of the population." That, actually, I wouldn't be surprised by. Top 1% in terms of intelligence -- assuming IQ as a reasonable measure -- isn't really all that difficult.
So, I just don't get why, in this particular case, it really makes a difference whether or not he's done anything yet. Even if this is worth anyone's time arguing about, which it isn't.
There's a truly awesome amount of meanness in this thread. I don't know why I clicked on the comments here in the first place; might've just been because there were a lot of them. But I've been really surprised at the viciousness here. There's often a mean comment or two in a thread, and half of the time, I'm the one making it. But, in this case, the sheer density and froth of the criticisms and psychoanalysis and everything else is just really breathtaking. And out of all of that, the "Well, what's he done that makes him Mr. Big Shot?" criticism just seems ... silliest, for lack of a better word.