After the Deadline: Acquired • Hacker News Board

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#21

Post by mattmaroon » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:01 PM UTC

Ironically the grammar error he cites might not be an error, depending on whether Mr Franken said that IRL or in print. If it were in print, such as on a website or email, then it was not incorrect for the New York Times (which was why I missed it, because I skip the quotes when looking for errors) to have simply transcribed Franken's error. (In that case they could put the old (sic) there, but I view that as a total dick move. Leave that pretentious stuff for The New Yorker.) If they were transcribing his spoken word, then it was erroneous.

I view that as ironic because the article talks about contextual grammar checking, and there's no way a machine (or in this case even a human) could know the proper context that determines whether or not the article's author made a mistake.

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#22

Post by create_account » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:09 PM UTC

zaidf wrote: post #9

ujjwalg wrote: post #8

Finally, a story in which YC misjudged... :) Congrats...

Misjudged? Not necessarily. While getting acquired is cool for the founders, getting acquired so early is usually not in YC's interest and I doubt they'd have too much regret over (what is likely) a super-small acquisition.

Sour grapes

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#23

Post by zaidf » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:12 PM UTC

create_account wrote: post #22

zaidf wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Misjudged? Not necessarily. While getting acquired is cool for the founders, getting acquired so early is usually not in YC's interest and I doubt they'd have too much regret over (what is likely) a super-small acquisition.

Sour grapes

May be you can elaborate.

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#24

Post by pvg » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:14 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #21

Ironically the grammar error he cites might not be an error, depending on whether Mr Franken said that IRL or in print. If it were in print, such as on a website or email, then it was not incorrect for the New York Times (which was why I missed it, because I skip the quotes when looking for errors) to have simply transcribed Franken's error. (In that case they could put the old (sic) there, but I view that as a total…

The NYT article makes it quite clear it's an interview. It's just a simple error of spelling (not grammar, the sentence is grammatically correct) in the original article.

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#25

Post by mikeryan » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:26 PM UTC

ujjwalg wrote: post #8

Finally, a story in which YC misjudged... :) Congrats...

I think you'll find that YC is littered with failures (startups missed, and those chosen that failed). That's the great thing about the model. At this scale they have the ability to do so.

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#26

Post by richcollins » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:33 PM UTC

Did you make more than you would have consulting over the same time period?

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#27

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:37 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #19

rsingel wrote: post #11

Hear, Here! The internet is thankful for all the future Wordpress-powered blogs whose writers will be spared the embarrassment of confusing its and it's, their and there, and complementary and complimentary. Congrats!

> Hear, Here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

[deleted]

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#28

Post by mattiss » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 10:59 PM UTC

Congratulations man! Way to not let rejection knock you down one bit!

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#29

Post by rsingel » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 11:16 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #19

rsingel wrote: post #11

Hear, Here! The internet is thankful for all the future Wordpress-powered blogs whose writers will be spared the embarrassment of confusing its and it's, their and there, and complementary and complimentary. Congrats!

> Hear, Here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hear,_hear

Sigh.

Re: After the Deadline: Acquired

#30

Post by hristov » Tue, Sep 08, 2009, 11:41 PM UTC

mattmaroon wrote: post #21

Ironically the grammar error he cites might not be an error, depending on whether Mr Franken said that IRL or in print. If it were in print, such as on a website or email, then it was not incorrect for the New York Times (which was why I missed it, because I skip the quotes when looking for errors) to have simply transcribed Franken's error. (In that case they could put the old (sic) there, but I view that as a total…

First, as the other poster mentioned, it was an interview. Second, when the NYT quotes something that is already written with known errors, the editors are guaranteed to either fix the errors and carefully note that they had to fix the grammar or add a [SIC] because that's the kind of people editors are.