They weren't "minimizing." The point is that this article is trying to create a "Googlers are killing themselves" narrative, which is unwarranted.

There's nothing in the article (if you read it) that tries to paint that narrative. As far as NYP goes, it's actually pretty mild and factual. I don't understand why so many commenters here are jumping at the chance to defend poor little Google from the evils of bad journalism.

Also how is > Maybe there is a real issue but two suicides within such large number of employees isn’t really significant.

NOT minimizing?

It's /mildly/ crafting the narrative in the very title... "second worker," which is implying "this is a pattern." Even the first word of the title is "Google."

As for the minimizing, remember that on HN we aim to take the best possible interpretation of our fellow members' comments. I'll assume that the person who wrote "isn't really significant" isn't a heartless monster, and therefore what they meant what that "this didn't merit a Google-focused NYPost article."

I agree that suicide is tragic and we shouldn't minimize any instance of someone taking their own life.

I was trying to say that linking it to Google and implying it is a trend based on just two suicides given their extremely large employee count isn't statistically sound without additional supporting data. I was speaking about the link to Google rather than the suicides themselves.