The man who killed Google Search?

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.

Agreed. I struggled to keep going after "computer scientist class traitor". A very juvenile take that reflects poorly on the author, IMO.

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.

Anyone who talks about class traitors, or almost any sort of traitor, outside of a real war, is deeply misguided on this point.

Read some marx. There is a whole analysis and theory behind class traitorship, it's causes and effects. You can't be ignorant of something as fundamental as marxian theory in this context, and then act as if it's the author making the faux pas...

Sorry I think you've made a lot of this up. Where did I say I was ignorant of something, and where did I say anything about a faux pas?

Here is what you said:

"Anyone who talks about class traitors, or almost any sort of traitor, outside of a real war, is deeply misguided on this point."

This is where you appear to imply you're ignorant of class traitorship. If you truly knew what it was - which you claim elsewhere to know - then you would know it doesn't require a war. Class traitors are non-capitalists who collaborate with capitalists against workers. They can do that during peace.

Now forgive me if the following explanation is unnecessary:

When someone uses a term in a misguided way we can say they made a faux pas. When you claim the author is misguided for talking about class traitors outside of war, you're implying they have made a faux pas.

But the author is making no mistake. Class traitors exist in peace time as well, as I mentioned.

So if you know what a class traitor is, then admit the author is not misguided. If you can't make that admission, you have misunderstood the nature of class traitorship.

> Class traitors are non-capitalists who collaborate with capitalists against workers. They can do that during peace.

I think this is deeply misguided.

Oh. You're arguing against the usefulness of the Marxist concept, and your objection has perhaps nothing to do with war traitors.

Do you disagree with communist theory in general?

I agree with the theory in the sense that I agree with the statement "Wouldn't it be nice if you had a genie that grants you wishes?"

I disagree with I think every implementation and its death toll, and with the general idea that we should be forming groups to violently gang up on other groups. Whether it's national socialism killing the citizens of other countries and taking their stuff to give to the government to apportion, or regular communism killing the citizens of other classes (classes defined by the communists) and taking their stuff to give to the government to apportion. Centralised economic control can easily get bad in small organisations, but at least the blast radius is limited. When it's in the hands of the government, who also have all the other powers, it never seems to work out well.