Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Are you claiming you do not have a conflict of interest here?



No not at all. I'm saying that it's not the reason why I couldn't comment further.

The conflict of interest (I'm not sure that's the most precise term here, but I'll go with it) is obvious, everyone's aware of it, and it doesn't normally (nor should it) stop me from sharing information with the community. HN readers are curious, generally like more information rather than less, and are smart enough to make up their own minds. And although you can call it a conflict, actually just sharing what's happening is a way to build trust with readers.

The difference in this case was not any of that—it's just that it's not my call what YC does or doesn't publish about its internal affairs, so I don't get to share information like I normally would. I don't like that; my comfort zone is, like I said, to tell HN readers whatever relevant information I can and let them decide for themselves. That has worked well over the years and continues to. But other people have different jobs and need to make decisions from different perspectives.


The actual difference between the bloodless "conflict of interest" and the line you did use to explain the title change is of course that the latter implies that this was not why Biggar was expelled, i.e. that there was some other reason -- "he had it coming anyway, it's just that I can't say precisely why."

Since you're not stupid we have to assume you knew very well that this was what you were saying, so we have to conclude you said exactly that because exactly that was what you wanted to say.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: