Except he was judging others based on a decision that they made, not on their thought process (which, as you pointed out, he doesn't know). You judged him based on his thought process that he himself laid out. I don't see your judgement as hypocritical (by your standards).

OP here. Completely agree that "wrong" is a subjective and relative measure. It depends on what one's priorities are: utility to the world or personal profit or whatever else. I did make an assumption about Evan's intentions and thought-process, but his action remains the same. He passed up taking cash for Snapchat, an app that has no real value in my personal opinion. He also passed up the opportunity, in my opinion, to take that cash and create something of real value. I may be wrong to come to those conclusions, but they are my opinions. I suppose you can call it hubris to post my opinion on the internet, as it is obviously comparable to turning down billions of dollars for a useless product.

I posted a reply here before HN crashed but it seems to not have been brought back when HN came back up.

Here's the gist: it's not that posting an opinion online is hubris, it's what your opinion entails and is based on. You have no facts about the deal, and no qualifications to speak on good business acquisitions. You call the product "worthless" while teams of people at Facebook and Google seem to value it very highly. I'm going to have to assume that the people FB and Google hire are all very intelligent and capable at their jobs, and they see value in purchasing the company (which is why they made the offer). You, however, with no information have decided they're all morons and you know better because SnapChat is "worthless". That, my friend, is indeed hubris. You assume that you know more than everyone else who has far more intimate knowledge of the company and product.

Here's the moral of the story: just because something seems "worthless" to you doesn't mean that it has no worth to anyone else. If other highly trained and educated people say it's worth quite a bit of money, then, perhaps, you should re-evaluate your viewpoint.

If SnapChat is out of business in two years was it still the right decision? Based on your interpretation there are never any wrong decisions, just different ones. I don't think this holds up in the real world.

And if they expand their business and go into more markets and become a technology company like Amazon (which started by only selling physical books online) or Google (who started with just a search engine), then how would the decision to not sell be viewed?

Or if he did sell and used the money to go on a cocaine bender and died in a hotel pool from an overdose - would selling have been the best thing for him?

Do you see how pointless "what if" scenarios actually are? There are too many variables to properly account for - you can't just change one variable (like a decision) and assume everything else turns out exactly as you would like.

Hmm, no. The problem with posts like these is that they're unashamedly racist and sexist. Apparently it's the cool thing now to bash young white men. All in the name of some mythical "privilege". This is the stuff of cults.

Haha, that's great. I'm sorry, of course you're right. There's no way someone who has never struggled for money has no advantage over the guy who graduated from school with $100k in debt. While we're at it, we can also declare that racism and sexism is over.