←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
neilv ◴[] No.40134839[source]
I think this article would work better if it were written entirely like textbook traditional investigative journalism. And less like the modern TV opinion personality, or the random strong-opinion Web comments in which many of the rest of us (including myself) indulge.
replies(8): >>40134879 #>>40135262 #>>40135594 #>>40135904 #>>40136387 #>>40136703 #>>40137636 #>>40138408 #
romanhn ◴[] No.40134879[source]
Agreed. I struggled to keep going after "computer scientist class traitor". A very juvenile take that reflects poorly on the author, IMO.
replies(4): >>40135277 #>>40135352 #>>40137151 #>>40139031 #
joenot443 ◴[] No.40137151[source]
You don’t find it to be succinct? It’s certainly pejorative, but in four words it explains quite nicely how the author feels about Raghaven in a way most engineers can probably relate to. If he’d said “engineer who no longer builds but leverages their past technical background to instead succeed in a management role, often to the detriment of their past engineering peers” it would roughly get the same idea across, it’s just a chore to read.

Personally I don’t mind that sort of colloquial flare, it reads like I’m talking with a real person rather than a design document.

replies(1): >>40138128 #
robertlagrant ◴[] No.40138128[source]
Anyone who talks about class traitors, or almost any sort of traitor, outside of a real war, is deeply misguided on this point.
replies(2): >>40140018 #>>40140305 #
oldkinglog ◴[] No.40140018{3}[source]
"class traitor" has a specific meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_traitor
replies(1): >>40142046 #
1. robertlagrant ◴[] No.40142046{4}[source]
Yes, I know.