Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Mm indeed, I find such comments quite shallow and pedantic.
WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
171–180 of 212 posts
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#172TL;DR: This is a huge verdict against Automattic. To get an injunction like this is a really high bar - you have to prove that you have a winnable case AND that you/the public is actively being harmed right now and it can't wait until trial. The injunction covers almost everything relevant - returning ACF, taking down the website tracker, removing the checkbox, etc. Basically return everything as it was before Matt b…
Uh, yeah, and in fact, the judge found likelihood of success on the tortuious interference claim which basically never happens, and so didn't bother to deal with the unfair competition part. That's remarkably bad for Automattic - tortuious interference is often a throwaway claim. The judge here clearly does not think much of Automattic's positions. I wonder if Neal found the merit yet[1]. [1] https://automattic.com/2…
Automattic made the unusual choice of publishing a blog saying "We did a tortuous interference intentionally" which makes it a lot easier.
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#173Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matt hasn't commented here in 57 days. I wonder what changed from, paraphrased, my lawyer okayed this communication[1] and now. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726961
Given the amount of downvotes his comments attract, I wouldn't be at all surprised that he just behaved like a normal human and decided to stop posting on a site where everyone seems to disagree with him.
Iunno, if I felt being misunderstood, I would try to make the same point over and over, irregardlessly (or: exactly because of) the downvotes.
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never interpreted these comments as mean-spirited, it’s just funny how the comment is completely wrong on hindsight. Kind of like the 640 kB of RAM thing or horses being better than cars. I don’t think the point is that the people saying it at the time were stupid, it’s just interesting that people can come to completely wrong conclusions which seem reasonable at the time.
It's not completely wrong in hindsight†. It's only "wrong" if you assume "app" means Dropbox itself, and if you ignore the context of the thread. Brandon was talking about an application that framed Dropbox as an alternative to USB drives, and critiquing the pitch . There was a time on HN where it actually made sense to bat a YC application back and forth, and to talk about what might make a more or less compelling o…
At least point 1 and 3 were completely wrong (or technically not wrong but irrelevant to the point).
As you can see by the success of Dropbox, point 1 wasn’t a real issue. That’s also the funniest point, because „why would anyone pay for XYZ, as a software engineer I can just do A, B, C, and D myself“ is such a common counterpoint which completely neglects that most customers aren’t going to do ABCD themselves because they don’t want to deal with it and don’t have the know how.
And point 3 probably can also be classified as wrong, at least Dropbox seems to make some amount of money.
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not completely wrong in hindsight†. It's only "wrong" if you assume "app" means Dropbox itself, and if you ignore the context of the thread. Brandon was talking about an application that framed Dropbox as an alternative to USB drives, and critiquing the pitch . There was a time on HN where it actually made sense to bat a YC application back and forth, and to talk about what might make a more or less compelling o…
At least point 1 and 3 were completely wrong (or technically not wrong but irrelevant to the point). As you can see by the success of Dropbox, point 1 wasn’t a real issue. That’s also the funniest point, because „why would anyone pay for XYZ, as a software engineer I can just do A, B, C, and D myself“ is such a common counterpoint which completely neglects that most customers aren’t going to do ABCD themselves becaus…
No, couldn't possibly have been wrong, because YC agreed with them. Again: you're missing what Dan is saying. The thread isn't about Dropbox-the-product. It's about the YC application Drew Houston wrote to pitch Dropbox. I really don't think there's a way to rhetoric your way out of this one!
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the amount of downvotes his comments attract, I wouldn't be at all surprised that he just behaved like a normal human and decided to stop posting on a site where everyone seems to disagree with him.
Iunno, if I felt being misunderstood, I would try to make the same point over and over, irregardlessly (or: exactly because of) the downvotes.
I used to do that, too. It didn't work.
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, they even showed they knew what the person meant. They were curious about why the person chose that particular word as it’s occurred frequently enough to make them wonder how/why it happens. If you know the answer I’d be happy to hear it.
Not the asker, but I have the same curiosity, as this phenomenon does not seem to occur with other words in English. I suspect it has something to do with "lose" being the only English word with the "oo" vowel followed by an "s", but I find it fascinating that this mistake can occur. And almost exclusively it is made by native English speakers.
This is exactly why I (native English speaker) frequently trip over this spelling.
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least point 1 and 3 were completely wrong (or technically not wrong but irrelevant to the point). As you can see by the success of Dropbox, point 1 wasn’t a real issue. That’s also the funniest point, because „why would anyone pay for XYZ, as a software engineer I can just do A, B, C, and D myself“ is such a common counterpoint which completely neglects that most customers aren’t going to do ABCD themselves becaus…
No, couldn't possibly have been wrong, because YC agreed with them. Again: you're missing what Dan is saying. The thread isn't about Dropbox-the-product. It's about the YC application Drew Houston wrote to pitch Dropbox. I really don't think there's a way to rhetoric your way out of this one!
But do you think the commenter meant „here are my issues with this YC application, you should make those points more clear: …“ or do you think he meant „here are my issues with this YC application, you should find something else to do!“?
Because to me it seems like he’s criticizing the product itself, not just the presentation.
Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction
#180matt is one of those inspirational people - like dhh, jason cohen people who built products from scratch and bootstrapped them. so it's sad seeing him go ape shit like that.