Responding to the responses: a summary, for the historical record.
Some people noted the key thing here - Sunny's decisions earned him more wealth (if ephemerally) and fame (ditto) than most of us will ever obtain. The balance of good to poor decisions leans heavily to the poor end of the spectrum to my eyes, but it's unlikely he would have agreed during most of the period.
Several people seemed more upset that my response to someone describing a man whose actions may have lead to the deaths of others, certainly amplifying poor health outcomes for many [0] that relied in good faith on the fraudulent & false results coming out of the company, his lack of children was a failure worth noting. Especially in contrast to his ex-partner who, between arrest and trial, had hurried to spawn -- more cynical observers may conclude that fits a well-described sociopathic profile. In any case, comparing highly questionable characters like these two reminds me of the old adage about arguing over the tallest dwarf.
Without irony I was told that:
o having a spine and saying what you believe is preferable - but given I said what I believe ...
o I should adjust my attitude - because telling people to adjust their attitude is wrong.
Several people observed that they themselves weren't personally offended -- good for you chaps! -- but sadly extrapolated that to conclude that anyone who disagreed on the no-kids == failure assessment was therefore wrong, via some breathtaking inductive logic.
Unsurprisingly, someone who thinks PHP is 'the best' struggled to cogently describe their position, but did allude to being too smart to be offended by any claims of being a failure (I guess php guys develop a thick skin) and then proceeded to react to increasingly bad-faith interpretrations of my initial en passant suggestion.
Some people noted the key thing here - Sunny's decisions earned him more wealth (if ephemerally) and fame (ditto) than most of us will ever obtain. The balance of good to poor decisions leans heavily to the poor end of the spectrum to my eyes, but it's unlikely he would have agreed during most of the period.
Several people seemed more upset that my response to someone describing a man whose actions may have lead to the deaths of others, certainly amplifying poor health outcomes for many [0] that relied in good faith on the fraudulent & false results coming out of the company, his lack of children was a failure worth noting. Especially in contrast to his ex-partner who, between arrest and trial, had hurried to spawn -- more cynical observers may conclude that fits a well-described sociopathic profile. In any case, comparing highly questionable characters like these two reminds me of the old adage about arguing over the tallest dwarf.
Without irony I was told that:
o having a spine and saying what you believe is preferable - but given I said what I believe ...
o I should adjust my attitude - because telling people to adjust their attitude is wrong.
Several people observed that they themselves weren't personally offended -- good for you chaps! -- but sadly extrapolated that to conclude that anyone who disagreed on the no-kids == failure assessment was therefore wrong, via some breathtaking inductive logic.
Unsurprisingly, someone who thinks PHP is 'the best' struggled to cogently describe their position, but did allude to being too smart to be offended by any claims of being a failure (I guess php guys develop a thick skin) and then proceeded to react to increasingly bad-faith interpretrations of my initial en passant suggestion.
[0] https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/elizabeth-holmes-trial...