Reading the thread before commenting is a good idea - you're not adding anything new to the conversation.
I didn't submit the post to HN, nor did I choose the headline (which I disagree with).
I'm aware the recruiter in question can't change anything, and have no hope of it having any effect at Google. Maybe it'll prompt readers to put their thinking caps and go further in their own reflection about their life and career. And that's all I'm asking for.
I'm interested in your use of "uninformed" though - to the best of your knowledge, is there anything in that blog post that is factually incorrect? I'll happily correct it, as long as it's backed by sources.
My comment was directed at the title chosen by OP. I have nothing against your post, the sharing of ideas and experiences is exactly the right reason for maintaining a blog . I concede that the "uninformed" bit was out of place as your post seem factually correct. We might disagree that “acquihiring” is fundamentally harmful to innovation even outside of the acquiring company, and some of the issues discussed about centralization can equally apply to many other actors in the industry not just Google. So again it was the chosen HN title that I had issue with.
I didn't submit the post to HN, nor did I choose the headline (which I disagree with).
I'm aware the recruiter in question can't change anything, and have no hope of it having any effect at Google. Maybe it'll prompt readers to put their thinking caps and go further in their own reflection about their life and career. And that's all I'm asking for.
I'm interested in your use of "uninformed" though - to the best of your knowledge, is there anything in that blog post that is factually incorrect? I'll happily correct it, as long as it's backed by sources.