[dang]

Your comment comes closer to being substantive, which is often the case with the reactions people post to our requests not to post unsubstantive comments.

Even so, while I understand your perception and like most people I intuitively feel like it must be true in many cases, I'm missing any sense of what specifically makes it true in this case, other than that "dog-walking" sounds trivial. A line of the form "Wag is an idea that could be well executed in about 2 million" feels to me like it's in the orbit of "I could implement that in a weekend"—the sort of thing people say when they're not personally close to the problem, because everything seems smaller at a distance.

Similarly with what you say about "bozos" and "well-paid fools"—ok, such humans exist, maybe including some of the humans who see others as bozos and fools—but do you know something specific about the individuals here? If you think you do, do you really know it, or might this be hearsay based on very little information? Usually what comments like this do is repeat generic reactions about a common topic, which is actually the opposite of a substantive HN discussion.

[kristopolous]

Tabloiding specific people in public forums is certainly bad form.

I've run across people at wag and other x as a service companies, it's all the same, just some niche carving of fiverr or taskrabbit with a lot of hype and very little substance.

Some like deliveroo out of the UK are genuinely competent but most are just doing theater