We don't know enough to justify the jeering. We don't know he was rich in 1996. We don't know he's rich now. We can read between the lines and infer that he possibly still retains Nvidia stock that is worth a lot, but we don't know that for sure. We only know that a tranche of stock that he was entitled to remains with Nvidia and is worth a lot of money now. Maybe he would have done really admirable, benevolent things with that money. Who knows? It doesn't matter. It's never ok to jeer or sneer on HN.
Don’t jeer or snipe on HN. Even if your framing is true, it’s an awful way to address anyone. If it’s false (which it likely is) it’s utterly vile.
> If it’s false (which it likely is)
it isnt false and you would know that if you read the article. Please dont comment on HN without reading the article....
We don't know enough to justify the jeering. We don't know he was rich in 1996. We don't know he's rich now. We can read between the lines and infer that he possibly still retains Nvidia stock that is worth a lot, but we don't know that for sure. We only know that a tranche of stock that he was entitled to remains with Nvidia and is worth a lot of money now. Maybe he would have done really admirable, benevolent things with that money. Who knows? It doesn't matter. It's never ok to jeer or sneer on HN.
We recommend reading the article before commenting.
i read the article... that is its entire premise
1. Nowhere does the article mention his current wealth (or lack of)
2. He didn’t “forget” — he misunderstood his contract, and only caught the error much later.
3. He’s not looking for pity. He writes: “I offer this in the spirit of a cautionary tale. I remain sanguine, and amused.”
Maybe something about his story bothered you?