Re:Canada's first sovereign wealth fund
by nish__ on Monday April 27, 2026 @01:20PM
(#47924479)
Why is HN so pessimistic?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Canada's first sovereign wealth fund
by pie_flavor on Monday April 27, 2026 @01:43PM
(#47924793)
The parent comment just says it'll perform similar to how past similarly-shaped things performed, without saying what that past performance is. If that implies pessimism, that's not HN's fault.
Re:Canada's first sovereign wealth fund
by visceralasonia on Monday April 27, 2026 @02:42PM
(#47925526)
I think they missed "laudable." My first read I thought it said laughable too—it's an easy misread that set a completely different tone for the rest of the comment.
Give me a break.
Re:Canada's first sovereign wealth fund
by kirubakaran on Monday April 27, 2026 @01:33PM
(#47924636)
Is setting expectations based on track record considered pessimism?
Incessant nit picking, negativity and doubt casting is my issue.
And Canada is unrecognizable these days. Why should I think past performance is indicative of future success?
Re:Canada's first sovereign wealth fund
by jsbisviewtiful on Monday April 27, 2026 @03:01PM
(#47925787)
> Incessant nit picking, negativity and doubt casting is my issue.
That has unfortunately been very common internet culture since 2020. It was there before the pandemic, but post-pandemic internet never recovered its full whimsy and veered headfirst into a depressive state. Probably says something about everyone's general mood.
As a Canadian I see little reason for optimism
Re:Canada's first sovereign wealth fund
by slopinthebag on Monday April 27, 2026 @01:49PM
(#47924869)
You're right, it is unrecognisable, and past performance is not indicative of future success. It will be much worse than past performance.
Sorry, not optimistic enough I suppose :(
Re:Canada's first sovereign wealth fund
by visceralasonia on Monday April 27, 2026 @02:43PM
(#47925540)
That says "laudable" not "laughable." They were actually complimenting the effort, even if some folks misread it