Speaking for myself and not for Figma and I wouldn’t want to muddy that fact or imply that I have meaningful non-public information. I don’t think anything I’ve said is either vociferous or disingenuous.

I actually haven’t even said whether or not I agree with the decision or whether or not I think the timeline is reasonable (in the sense of whether the benefits and needs of the timeline justify the cost of it), so that doesn’t seem vociferous to me.

If I was being disingenuous I’d post on a throwaway, not an account that you can trivially connect to my identity.

You have meaningful non-public motive: probable millions to earn if this deal for through.

This deal already has fallen through. What I type here has no possible impact. So idk what the motive here really is.

I have a bunch of different feelings about it of course, but I think what I have said here has been factual and verifiable against public information.

One of the things I’ve always enjoyed about hacker news is that it isn’t purely a peanut gallery and people involved in the companies and technologies we talk about do post here. Attributing bad faith to those people when they do participate seems antithetical to the spirit of this place.

The DOJ immediately (less than a month) signaled they were against this and would sue, you disputing this = disingenuous.

You then left seven or eight comments defending that error.

It probably wouldn't have come off as so shady if you had mentioned your employer in the first place.