Dan clearly references how people misunderstand not only the comment (“he didn't mean the software. He meant their YC application”) but also the whole interaction (“He wasn't being a petty nitpicker—he was earnestly trying to help, and you can see in how sweetly he replied to Drew there that he genuinely wanted them to succeed”).

So yes, it is the opposite of why people link to it, which is to mock an attitude (which wasn’t there) of hubris and lack of understanding of what makes a good product.

The comment isn't infamous because it was petty or nitpicking. It's because the comment was so poorly communicated and because the author was so profoundly out-of-touch with the average person that they had lost all perspective.

It's why it caught the zeitgeist at the time and why it's still apropos in this conversation now.

> It's because the comment was so poorly communicated and because the author was so profoundly out-of-touch with the average person that they had lost all perspective.

None of those things are true. Which is the point I’m making. Go read the original conversation. All of it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224

Don’t skip Brandon’s reply.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9479

It is patently absurd to claim that someone who quickly understood the explanation, learned from it, conceded where they were wrong, is somehow “profoundly out-of-touch” and “lost all perspective”. It’s the exact opposite.

I agree with Dan that we’d be lucky if all conversations were like that.

I think you should take your own advice and re-read the conversation without your pre-conceived conclusion.

Ironically your own overly verbose and aggressive comments here fall into the same trap.