That's how I feel about HN. Theres a large percentage of quality talent that comes here, as well as bullshitters. That combined gives you the illusion that you are stranded in the wrong hemisphere, when in reality 99% of us are here.

That situation is the 1%.

"32 year old developer launches feature after a grueling 8 weeks"

or

"Entire company extremely surprised to see Mike come in on a Monday after last Friday's firing round"

Keep in mind, $250K doesn't go very far when real estate like this is considered a "bargain": https://www.redfin.com/CA/Cupertino/1157-S-Stelling-Rd-95014...

I know I live out in the sticks, but seriously the only house I know of that costs that much around here is 11,000 sq ft, on 30 acres of land and has both indoor and outdoor pools, a movie theater room and a gym.

The kind that use proper spelling and punctuation, perhaps?

Don't you mean "the kind who use proper spelling"?

If you're going to correct someone, at least get it right.

No. Both "who" and "that" may be used to anchor relative clauses with human antecedents. To quote [1]:

Most writers use 'that' and 'which' as the relative pronouns for inanimate objects, and who as the relative pronoun for humans. This widespread habit has led to the mistaken belief that using that in reference to humans is an error. In fact, while most editors prefer who for people, there is no rule saying we can’t use that, and that has been widely used in reference to people for many centuries.

In other words, my original sentence was perfectly grammatical, and in regard to the original commenter's presentation skills -- and their correlation to his employability and salary potential -- I was simply stating the obvious. But this being HN, I've been downvoted and/or flamed at least 8 times for it.

[1] http://grammarist.com/usage/that-who/

Nor is it widely adhered to, in colloquial usage.