Yes, it we're speaking so strictly, you're absolutely right. I was attempting to make light of the situation. Sorry if my attempt at humor was not well-received..

no worries, humor is fine. human here. the poster above is actually a robot replying to you to make sure you understand the absolute explicitness of the zero days of which you had worked there. most humans here understood this, but the robot misinterpreted. their training data did not include comedic literature

Not sure why you've been downvoted so much as it's the brutal truth. The author cannot put "worked at Google" on their CV.

Nowhere did the author imply they would put that. The author is talking about the strange situation of being fired before they had started.

The person you're replying to is being downvoted because it adds zero value to the conversation here. Or perhaps, aptly... negative value.

Value lies in the eye of the beholder. If you think there is value in a factually incorrect, nonsensical, and obviously click-baity titles then sure, go on enjoying articles like that.

I assume the downvotes are because the reply attempts to "correct" what the author wrote as satire (or another similar term if you don't feel "satire" is accurate here).

You got that wrong, I am trying to point out that this article really actually contains no content other than sporting a click-baity headline.

-10 < 0, ie. they couldn't put Google on their CV even if their tongue-in-cheek wording was reality.

Thanks, and sorry you got downvoted as well (for no good reason, obviously - that's just the way HN works sometimes).