| HN Mirror

  > Thanks for your passive-aggressive reply.

Hmm. My reply was absolutely genuine. You appear to be ascribing to me motives that don't exist. I honestly wanted to know the reasoning or beliefs underlying your comment, because I honestly didn't understand why you were calling it a "fluff of platitudes". I honestly wanted to know why you believe that this item is "actually hurting startup founders." That's why I asked for more information, and in particular, I asked for more details of why you said what you said, before I made any kind of judgement about your motives.

So thank you for your reply, I have found it interesting and enlightening. And believe it or not, I'm being genuine when I say that.

  > My comment was directed at the author, not at you.

That wasn't clear. It often appears to me on HN that people direct comments at the submitter of an item, rather than at the author. After all, the author might not read HN. Thank you for your clarification.

  > I don't know what if any connection you have to the author.

For reference, none.

  > However, you should note the content-free enthusiastic comment
  > by LeonW, posted right after you submitted the article, in which
  > he does not mention that he is the author's co-founder.

Noted. Personally, I've always pretty much ignored content-free, enthusiastic comments, or even down-voted and in some cases flagged them. I do that without wondering whether people have connections, or are co-founders, or whatever, simply because I tend to act on the content (or lack thereof) rather than perceived, inferred, or supposed connections or motives. That's just me - I don't look for conspiracies.

  > You might also have noticed that many articles from this blog are
  > similar: a catchy headline, a bunch of vague inspirational words
  > on an uncontroversial subject, a token link to the conversion
  > funnel, and a surprisingly high rank on the HN front page.

So, you obviously think the high rank is undeserved. Fair enough - why do you think that might be the case? I know that there is a reasonably effective voting-ring detector on HN (at times possibly too aggressive) so it doesn't seem likely to me that it's just the author getting lots of cronies to upvote it. Do you think the HN audience is insufficiently critical?

One reason I ask is this: for a slightly different context, I could've written this article and I would have meant every word of it. I'm active in certain circles, and I frequently mentor and give time and advice with absolutely no expectation of return or reward. The reason? Pretty much exactly as listed in this item. That's why it resonated with me, and that's why I submitted it - I'd like to see more people give back to their communities, whatever communities they may be.

As it happens I do get benefits in return, largely in line with those listed in the item. It's not why I do it, it's not why I did it in the first place, and it's not why I'll continue to do it. In truth, I think it's important on some level, and I think it's right.

  > If you aren't even slightly suspicious that this article is
  > 99% conversion fodder and maybe 1% altruism, I am not going
  > to be able to explain it to you.

Well, I read things to gain insight, learn stuff, and with any luck, to become better at what I choose to do. Sometimes I find real truths in unlikely places.

But here's one thing I've found. For me, evaluating things critically for what they are, and not for where I think they come from, or why I think they've been produced, and independently of any real or assumed motives on the part of the author, works for me. After all, the overwhelming majority of material on the web has some motivation behind it, and I deal with that by treating everything on its merits.

It's taken me some time to compose this reply. I hope you find it an interesting insight into a point of view other than your own. No doubt we won't agree, but I've learned something from you, and I hope this affords you the same opportunity.