Let’s see now. The article spends pages talking about _why and the author’s relationship with _why’s work. Great. It spends a page talking about _why’s desire for anonymity and reclusive nature. Good. It talks about _why’s “infosuicide” and notes that it happened shortly after he was “outed.” Fine.

And then we get paragraphs detailing how this journalist stalked him trying to get him to comment about the article. Send an email or two, fine, but after sending emails and leaving messages that were all unreturned, after leaving messages with people who know the man behind the pseudonym which were ignored, this journalist still had to track him down to where is is now working and try to get through to talk to him.

Being a journalist does not give you a right to stalk people. You have no special immunity to care and consideration for other people’s feelings. This man is not some sort of villain on the run from the law, he’s a private citizen who wishes to be be left alone, and this “journalist” admits to flirting with the idea of showing up at his house after being repeatedly refused contact.

I strongly disapprove of this conduct, it smacks of hubris to think that some fleeting bit of text, written for the business purpose of getting eyeballs to look at advertisements, is worth huntimg a man down and cornering him when he does not want to be interviewed.

p.s. And regardless of how well the name of the man behind _why is or isn’t known, I also disapprove of repeating it in the article, it was not necessary to the story at all.

Hi there, raganwald, Annie here. I think this is a completely valid criticism, and it's one I largely expected. But for what it is worth, here are my thoughts.

As a journalist, I think it would have been irresponsible not to inform _why of the article and not to try to interview him. (As a general point, you don't write articles about public figures, and he was absolutely a public figure, without giving them the chance to respond.) I didn't expect him to get back to me, and certainly did not stalk him. And my hope is that the article approaches the infosuicide in the most humane way possible.

Sorry if this sounds harsh, and I know he has a lot of fans out there. But this guy struck gold 5 years ago with Digg. Sure, he deserves props for this. However, he's not a developer. He's an "ideas guy" as far as I can tell. As a developer, I hate these kinds of people because more often than not their ideas suck.

In any case, what I am saying is that it seems like people in the industry get by based on one previous successful project. It doesn't matter if it happened yesterday or 10 years ago. It doesn't matter whether they had a little to do with it or a lot. It doesn't matter if they understand how to code or not. Once they have that reputation as being awesome it will stick around no matter how badly they perform after their initial success.

What could he possibly be bringing to the table with Google?

Just my two cents. I'm probably alone with this opinion, but it's extremely frustrating to see this stuff happen over and over again.

/end rant

Create a problem.

Sell a solution to that problem.

I'm so out of energy for this stupidity I can't finish my comment. Bye.

To quote pg: "A hacker who has learned what to make, and not just how to make, is extraordinarily powerful."

As a developer, it is frustrating to see fellow developers place too much importance on being able to code as a necessary ingredient for startup success.

As a hacker, I'd say that most hackers know how to make, but don't know what to make. That is to say, most startups from these type of hackers with the "if I build they will come"[1] mentality end up basically degenerating into non-profits or open-source (when their intent was to become the next big for-profit company).

To my fellow hardcore hackers. Please get over yourself and learn some non-technical skills: sales, marketing, design, product UI/UX, biz dev, getting distribution, negotiation skills, heck - some people skills! (this comment not withstanding since I'm frustrated with the comment above).

If you're going to look down on people who can't code, you should get out of your own comfort zone and do all those non-technical things I've just listed above first. Kevin Rose has a rolodex, which I'm sure has benefits to whatever his entrepreneurial venture is. You don't? Why not? Learn how to hustle.

Just because you can't code, doesn't mean you can't build a business - and vice versa - just because you can code, doesn't mean you can build a business.

/ end rant

[1] exception, not the rule