[bdcravens]

I've had some interactions with @shl on Twitter where he seemed a bit full of himself (a few years ago - I didn't realize he was so young, so that probably had a lot to do with it). However, he could, and most would, have cut and run and found the next opportunity. Not doing so probably cost him millions of dollars; that's pretty authentic in my book.

[sahillavingia]

I'm sorry you had those interactions with me in the past!

I think I've grown since, but it still sucks to hear that about past-me.

[bdcravens]

No worries at all. Keep building good products and you as a person (too many double down on their character flaws).

[Kye]

I've only had positive experiences. Very good human.

[writepub]

Why does his behavior on Twitter, good or bad, need mentioning here? What does it have to do with the article?

It feels like the new normal is for absolutely everyone to be in everyone else's good books. I'm sure a TON of people in the wild think they had bad interactions with you, online or offline. Does that really matter? Can one reduce you to any one of those singular opinions? Is one not allowed to make a mistake, because, the last I checked, humans were imperfect. Why make these trivialities a topic of conversation?

[bdcravens]

I was trying to contrast the experience I had years ago with the voice of the post, which suggested far more maturity and authenticity than my previous personal experience.

> What does it have to do with the article?

Simply a personal anecdote which I think was consistent with the message Sahil was expressing in the post: he was young, he was overconfident, and he had a lot of growth required. I would like to think that the flip side of that message, that he has grown and hasn't taken the easy way out, was something I was trying to validate, and I was providing the context for that. I wasn't trying to say he wasn't allowed to make a mistake or persecute him for his behavior; I apologize if that's what I communicated.