Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by ksvs on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @12:40PM (#433905)

His second reward-- more valuable, since he probably will stay at Google-- was to have this article written about him.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by OpenMIKE on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @01:45PM (#434003)

Nay, according to his linkedIn profile, he's already left google.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by unalone on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @01:49PM (#434014)

Nope! Reread that. Now he's an associate project manager.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by palish on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @03:36PM (#434234)

You caught OpenMIKE red-handed. Quick, let's all downmod him to -31337!

Edit: in case it wasn't clear, the purpose of this comment was to block the impending group-downmod of OpenMIKE. He was already at -1 when I posted this. That already happened once today to a brand-new member of HN (rambo), so I'm rather passionate about preventing that kind of behavior.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by unalone on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:33PM (#434453)

Yeah.

Sorry, OpenMIKE. I didn't mean to be calling you out. Just pointing it out.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by palish on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:52PM (#434487)

Hehe, sorry, to be clear, it was very good that you did. I just meant to discourage the downvoters, and certainly not to blame anybody.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by cdr on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @10:27PM (#434763)

Let's downmod you instead, for trying to be a wannabe mod. An incorrect comment should be at -1. If it gets lower than that, well that's a shame, but from what I've seen it's more common for it to stay at -1.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by run4yourlives on Thursday January 15, 2009 @04:35AM (#435019)

Or you could just re-read the comment immediately after his, and realize that OpenMIKE added to the discussion and contributed to the community, bettering it.

Nobody is perfect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by OpenMIKE on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:18PM (#434305)

Oops, totally misread it. Reading skills -15 for the day.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by anuraggoel on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @04:41PM (#434339)

At the risk of being down-modded...

Nope! Reread that. Now he's an associate proDUCT manager.

8-)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Joel Spolsky: Thanks or No Thanks by unalone on Wednesday January 14, 2009 @05:33PM (#434454)

I took a guess in the dark, and it didn't pay off. I apologize to y'all.

[ Parent | on HN ]