> I'm not changing it to be more corpo-propriate now.
Look, I'm not wanting to be rude here, and this is obviously all hypothetical since you're likely not actively pitching to investors, but if you were, being stubborn in this way would be a deal breaker for me as an investor.
I see all the reasons you have for keeping it, and they're reasonable, but the mere idea that that's a hill you're willing to die on is a red flag. I'd see this as one of many potential points of friction. Where else will you choose to not make compromises?
Maybe it's not rational on my part, but you're trying to convince irrational entities to part with their money.
You could look at it this way: if someone offered $17M to change it, would you?
I kind of am actively pitching to investors at this point.
I wouldn't say the username is a hill to die on. I can't hide that this is the online identity I used while working on this project. Trying to hide it would just feel sketchier, no?
And yeah, for 17 mil I'm willing to talk about most anything, but I still see a conversation with investors like going on a date. The red flags can go both ways...
"Listen, I'm no doctor, but your shit stinks in a way that makes me think you need to see one," said while you're in the stall next to him, or any other time, couldn't hurt.
If you'd kept reading the sentence, you wouldn't be asking the questions you're asking.
> A product can be both, according to the current US administration
The person you're responding to isn't trying to convince you that a tent is two things, they're telling you that the US government wants you to believe a tent is two things.
I am a good hacker, and I find this interesting. This is on topic and should not be flagged. When an influential tech leader says "Silicon Valley can’t be neutral any longer", I want to hear what they have to say. I want to hear what the HN community has to say about it.
But the HN community has voiced their opinion on numerous occasions. It's just that a lot of those voices unfortunately lack human empathy, compassion, and decency.
Yeah they can pitch their startups to the technofeudalist fascist overlords to buy themselves a boat and retire with a lot of money, and really now, isn’t that the point?
This is what you are not supposed to be able to get anywhere else.
It does seem like that could be a pretty good measure of desirabilty.
Not only whether or not the article in particular, or its subject may be so popular that it's all over the mainstream news. Depends on what it is. When the commentary is not what you get from the mainstream that's one thing you want, but when it starts out or degenerates into something thoughtless or no different you don't need a whole lot of that.
I still see no reason for me to flag anything or downvote anybody, there's plenty of that without me adding to the downside.
You might be right. I read the lyrical flourish of the multiple questions (What about hands? What about etc.?) and the "for boys" quip as unnecessarily aggressive and dismissive, but maybe that wasn't the intention.
Given that, I'd suggest not offering "alternatives" to the features described in TFA for a service you've never used. There are people here talking about oranges, a lot of them with domain expertise, and you're not just talking about apples, you're talking about bird migrations.
Look, I'm not wanting to be rude here, and this is obviously all hypothetical since you're likely not actively pitching to investors, but if you were, being stubborn in this way would be a deal breaker for me as an investor.
I see all the reasons you have for keeping it, and they're reasonable, but the mere idea that that's a hill you're willing to die on is a red flag. I'd see this as one of many potential points of friction. Where else will you choose to not make compromises?
Maybe it's not rational on my part, but you're trying to convince irrational entities to part with their money.
You could look at it this way: if someone offered $17M to change it, would you?
reply