A couple of these have significant engagement (one of them has 483 comments), but most have 1 or 2 points & 0 comments.

It's a big club, and you ain't in it.

What is unusual however are those who are consistently sleazy.

Nobody intelligent spends their time hanging out or working with likely backstabbers, if they have any other choice.

Which is why I feel confident in my assertion, even though I haven't personally inspected every private club and office in the region.

Omg. Then what isn’t exploitative?! There’s always a bit of a selfish motive in developing partnerships or friendships even.

This is next level victimization.

You never know what people's intent is, and you should assume the best until proven otherwise, but like you say, a spade is a spade, and being nice is useful to the people being nice.

I say this as someone who sees nothing wrong for cranking out 60+ hour weeks of that's your thing.

You may not owe wealthy men better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. The issue is what this sort of bile does to us, in our own community.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I sure wish I had paid more attention to that flyer for the fledgling Electronic Arts :-)

Gaming companies have fame to exploit coders though, probably EA stock makes it worth it if you were in it tho

I'm honestly not sure what the basis was when this was posted.

But no, of course, it was because they had "questions" and everything in tech is Adam Neumann and Theranos.

Compare this behavior with Jeff Bezos. For all his faults, he did something infinitely classier. He actually bankrolled a news organization that has a global presence and practices journalistic excellence - and did not try to meddle in its editorial policy beyond that (or if he did, it was so subtle as to be unnoticeable).

The goal of journalism is to "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted", so why should publishers not take a critical stance toward some of the most comfortable people in the history of humankind?

If there's something happening in tech that worthy of criticism, criticize it. If there's something worthy of praise, praise it. And for the rest: report it. Only presenting negative things is about as useful as only presenting positive things. But it feels more journalistic, "speaking truth to power" and all that. It's not, negativity just sells better.

There are good journalists out there, they just have been long fired from their news rooms and have accepted that the owners of the mass media are in control of the narrative.

The only useless stories on FTX I’ve seen has been through HN comments calling them out. The FT, Bloomberg (in particular, Matt Levine) and Journal have each called it a fraud from the beginning.

Levine wrote a whole enjoyable issue of Bloomberg about crypto that was moderately bullish! He thinks it’s kinda neat. That’s nowhere near the hype you hear from the bitcoin weirdos, but, you know, much more bullish than “a scam that should be made illegal,” which is also a mainstream take.

You may be missing the sarcasm. I think crypto is neat, intellectually. I also think it’s a scam, and everyone in it will lose money and reputation, but I’m not going to put one hundred percent confidence in that view.

These are mutually compatible opinions. Read Levine’s insider trading takes and see if you think he’s pro insider trading.

Here's a link to the (excellent) crypto story you mentioned: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-the-crypto-story/