Analogue Pocket Hate Story

This isn't really a random company. Analogue is a company that is plastered across almost every tech/gaming site I visit right now. I think there is a difference between airing every grievance you have with everyone, and airing a specific grievance you have with a company that is getting a huge amount of coverage, if you are someone who is also reasonably prominent within the community that is being covered by the press and that is being targeted with this hardware release.

Because Endrift also isn't really a random person, she's in charge of some extremely public, fairly lauded emulators in the retro space. Analogue is releasing one of the more anticipated and public hardware projects in that space, and Endrift within that context is talking about their experiences with Analogue the company -- including some reasonably relevant details like that the company asked them to delay a release of an Open Source emulator.

Back when I was in college, people in my department shared what was being offered by companies that came over to job fairs trying to hire us. We talked about the hiring processes, the interview processes, and what their culture was like, because we were all part of a community of people who were going to be interacting with the same companies. Unless it was under NDA we didn't keep a ton of that stuff secret, we wanted the people we were going to class with to know what companies were worth pursuing and what companies weren't. So sure, this doesn't warrant a NYT article, it's not an accusation that means Analogue the company should be burned to the ground or something, but don't you see any value in a prominent voice in the emulation community talking about (on a personal blog) their experiences with a company that is a very public presence within the emulation space?

Some additional context here is possibly warranted that the author didn't share this post to HN, somebody else did. I feel like often with worries about things being "too public", there's a weird phenomenon where communities being open enough that people outside of that community can look in suddenly means that anything posted publicly is expected to be intended for a global audience or planned out as a potentially viral piece. But in the same way that I don't think the negotiation process here is worth as much debate as its seeing in the comments, I also don't think the author reflecting on that experience publicly is weird, at least not given the context of the general news about Analogue happening right now, and at least not given the context that this is the person running mGBA. I certainly don't think it's weird enough that it warrants publicly claiming that the author is lacking empathy.

> even how it's called a "hate story"

Someone else has already mentioned, but this is a reference to a video game title.

> Back when I was in college, people in my department shared what was being offered by companies that came over to job fairs trying to hire us. We talked about the hiring processes, the interview processes, and what their culture was like, because we were all part of a community of people who were going to be interacting with the same companies.

I don't really have a problem with someone saying a company low-balled them. Honestly, the fact that she took screencaps of what appear to be private conversations (where the other side specifically refers to it as a personal conversation) and refers to specific people at that company is where I think it goes from being something equivalent to "that time Analogue tried to hire me but vastly underestimated the cost and my value, so I turned them down" into something else. If the author had written something along those lines, even at length, then I don't think the vast majority would have a problem with that.

Instead what we have is something that seems far more personal, and far more targeted as specific people, but without context as to why that's warranted, and not necessarily shared with some people with like situations, but for the world to see.

> Some additional context here is possibly warranted that the author didn't share this post to HN, somebody else did.

The author posted it online. It wasn't some private conversation (although she doesn't seem to think posting private conversations is worth noting enough to justify from what I can see), but pushed out for the world to see. Google's going to index it, people are going to share it.

> there's a weird phenomenon where communities being open enough that people outside of that community can look in suddenly means that anything posted publicly is expected to be intended for a global audience or planned out as a potentially viral piece.

I think perhaps people show be more careful what they say online in open locations. These are not private conversations. Other people see them. When you say something in an open forum it's the equivalent of carving it into a tree in a public area in the real world. Any expectation that it's private is ludicrous, no matter how many people seem to fall back to that excuse when called out for something they've said. Perhaps people just should act as they would like to be treated in public. The author, by making a private conversation public deserves no consideration that her public post wasn't intended to be seen by the world, in my opinion.

> But in the same way that I don't think the negotiation process here is worth as much debate as its seeing in the comments

I wouldn't think it was really worth doing an expose on either, but the author seems to think it worth while. The negotiation is rather mundane. It's that she decided to air it to the world which I think is the more interesting thing, even if it's interesting in a way that I think doesn't speak well of her.

> this is a reference to a video game title.

I noticed that, and I think that's a bit less objectionable because of it. It's still kind of ick though, and I think speaks to a lack of care regarding the situation.

In case it hasn't come through as obvious, my real objection to the behavior is the airing of private conversations with individuals for no useful reason. That the conversation seems utterly mundane but is presented otherwise makes it worse in my eyes, because there's no obvious reason from the conversation either.

I think I've written enough on this. The only reason I've written what I have so far is because people keep equating her behavior to less objectionable comparisons, but to me it seems clearly different when it's public on the internet, aimed at specific people, and uses screencaps of a private conversation in a way that I think would make most people feel violated if it was put online like that, regardless of whether they said anything objectionable in it.

Which demonstrates poor judgement. The post title is extremely inflammatory whether it's a reference or not.

Terms can change during negotiations, it's not like they changed the terms after an arrangement was agreed to.