It’s almost as if that was already said if you had kept reading past the first sentence.

> I think a lot of people working there just made the calculated decision that Meta being at the very high end of the compensation scale made it worth it.

Is this our level of laziness now? To read the first sentence and base our snarky replies entirely off it, ignoring the fact that it’s a rhetorical question that was answered immediately after?

Its a post-communication world. While before only a title was read and comments based on assuming what the content is, now we assume what the comment is and reply based on that.

> I think a lot of people working there just made the calculated decision that Meta being at the very high end of the compensation scale made it worth it.

That didn’t help. It’s like saying “I don’t know why the guy died. Maybe it’s because he got shot in the head at point blank range”?

Of course people work at Meta because of the money. No one works for Meta to make the world a better place

Do you understand the concept of rhetorical questions?

Because your comment indicates that you clearly don’t understand that people sometimes ask questions not because they want an answer but for emphasis or dramatic effect.

This was, clearly, such a case.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Digging down on your snark when you’re called out is a bold play that doesn’t generally work. Most people have this thing called humbleness but I guess you left it with the rhetorical questions.

In other words, there is nothing insightful about wondering why people work for the best paying company in tech is because they like making money.

The original post was no more insightful than “I wonder why he got wet when he jumped into the wster”

In that vein, replying the exact same thing with different words and added snark is even less insightful. And repetitive to boot.

Hence, you know, me calling you out on it.

Get off your high horse.