[jacquesm]

> He spent considerable amount of time which, in my opinion, would be better spent creating something superior.

You decide what you want to do with your life, the author gets to decide what to do with theirs. It's not your call to make.

> To reiterate, I empathize with his grievances. Outlining them doesn't serve to bolster the legitimacy of his brand or sell videos.

To you.

> If the intention is to get the pitchforks and sick them on Udemy, I also think I'm correct in pouring cold water on that too.

I didn't see any pitchforks. Just a very detailed end-user report detailing a bunch of issues with an online service, provided free of charge.

> I truly see things differently, I don't want an end game where mobbing and shaming - I want to key people coding and making things.

Good, so go code stuff and make stuff. You're not doing either here you're telling someone to stop making stuff (writing is making stuff).

> He says he creates tutorials on SAAS platforms, yet he himself gives a critique to udemy on their site's performance and practices?

Who better than someone that has the experience?

> To people's perceptions, that may send a conflicting message.

HN is a pretty smart bunch I don't think we need you to interpret the message for us, we're quite capable of thinking for ourselves here.

> Let's see this another way, author launches his own video website using his SAAS Flask skills and talents.

He just might, time will tell. But at least he gave Udemy the benefit of his experience for which they are no doubt grateful.

[anon6_]

> Good, so go code stuff and make stuff. You're not doing either here you're telling someone to stop making stuff (writing is making stuff).

The author of the blog post, who wrote a tutorial on how to create SAAS platforms, then complained about the SAAS service he used.

I find that contradictory. I gave an opinion. I don't understand why that makes me the subject.

> HN is a pretty smart bunch I don't think we need you to interpret the message for us, we're quite capable of thinking for ourselves here.

"We?"

> He just might, time will tell. But at least he gave Udemy the benefit of his experience for which they are no doubt grateful.

An instructor's goal to teach his students and be able to pay his bills.

[jacquesm]

> I find that contradictory. I gave an opinion. I don't understand why that makes me the subject.

It's a presumptuous paternalistic position, not just an opinion. That's what makes you the subject. You in one fell swoop and with zero credibility claim to be the arbiter of what can be discussed here, what should be taken off the homepage, what the author should do about his brand image and so on. I fail to see any of your advice backed up by either reason or fact.

> "We?"

If you read back to your first comment you'll see that you used 'we' in just the same way. I just used yours for inspiration, it's funny to see you offended now.

For reference:

> "So how about we take this off the front page"

"We?"

How about we don't.

> An instructor's goal to teach his students and be able to pay his bills.

He's doing just fine in that respect, but who are you to tell him what his goals should be? I'm sure there are people on udemy who make courses just for the fun of it.

Also, you're ... a verb there.

[tangled_zans]

ha, excellent rebuttal! I enjoyed reading the article, and I think it was a good contribution to the front page, as does everyone who upvoted it.

As an added hilarity... For added context I compared anon6_'s account info to yours... "-15 karma and created 9 days ago". . . what kind of person feels comfortable enough to dictate what should and should not be on the front page after literally just joining the community? AND being offended at your use of "we", when you have infinitely more validity to use it. I literally laughed out loud when I saw those stats.

To quote another gem from the front page:

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."