←back to thread

The man who killed Google Search?

(www.wheresyoured.at)
1884 points elorant | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Willish42 ◴[] No.40139670[source]
> And in my next newsletter, I'm going to walk you through how a very specific kind of managerial mindset has poisoned Silicon Valley, making career failures unfathomably rich while your favorite tech products decay.

I look forward to this one as somebody with a personally vested interest!

More seriously, Ed Zitron's podcast Better Offline is great for those who enjoyed this article. I love his opinionated perspective even when I don't wholesale agree (though in this case I do), and I find him a breath of fresh air in tech journalism. I work in a ... similar company and find his perspective to be spot on about growth hacking degrading product health over time, and the baffling track record of many an SVP.

replies(1): >>40141634 #
exodust ◴[] No.40141634[source]
A glowing endorsement, but deserved? Under "more like this" we find multiple hit-pieces by Zitron, hating on one man. You guessed it, Musk Bad Man.

Never heard of Zitron, but I won't be back. His bitterness is on verge of unhealthy obsession. Oddly word-stuffed rants, sounds like he spent ages constructing different ways to criticise Musk.

> "He has spent $44 billion in an attempt to make people love him only to be left with a very expensive way to make people angry at him every single day for the rest of his life."

So much hot air. "Fresh air of tech journalism," you say?

Another piece "Musk Is Dangerous To Society" I didn't read since the spoiler is kind of right there in the title!

replies(1): >>40143699 #
dpkirchner ◴[] No.40143699[source]
Musk is objectively a bad man, though. Remember when he called someone a "pedo guy" because that someone dares to disagree with his proposal for saving trapped people? Inexcusable.
replies(2): >>40151423 #>>40153590 #
exodust ◴[] No.40153590[source]
You'll need to do better than "pedo-guy" to quality your statement.

What you call "disagree" was actually a public attack from the diver out of nowhere. Musk didn't know him. The guy went to the media and claimed Musk was acting in bad faith by offering a sub to the rescue efforts, and that "Musk can shove his sub up his rear end." It was inexcusable slander out of nowhere. Musk admitted to reacting poorly, apologising more than once including in court. Diver guy tried to sue for $190 million (yep seriously) but was awarded nothing by the jury. Why? Because diver guy was Dickhead A, and Musk was Dickhead B, in a grumpy trash-spat that distracted from the real issue of rescuing the Thai boys. The sub ended up going to the Thai Navy who said they could use it for future rescues.

replies(1): >>40157953 #
dpkirchner ◴[] No.40157953[source]
I don't think I do. It's the kind of retort I'd expect from a 12 year old who may not know better, but Musk is an adult. Calling someone a pedophile without proof is one of the worst things you can do to a person -- especially when you have a megaphone as large as Musk's.

If you think saying someone's offer of help was made in bad faith is as slanderous as saying someone is a pedophile, we'll never see eye to eye.

replies(1): >>40166654 #
1. exodust ◴[] No.40166654[source]
A team of engineers built the sub. It wasn't the work of one man.

I think we could see eye to eye, but first you'll need to acknowledge that rubbishing the work of others during a time when kids need rescuing, is the worst possible time to unleash attention-seeking mudslinging against other parties.

The sub wasn't suitable in the end. So what? It was a desperate situation. Help was scrambled from across the world. Many ideas were tabled. The way those boys eventually came out was extremely risky. Anyway, this topic diversion is off the main topic of rubbishing some Google staffer who "killed search". All the best.