Why wouldn't you listen to a company on why their product solves the problem you're having?

tantalor 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Since you're not picking up on a social subtext, "we should not listen to them" here means "don't be influenced by them" or "don't take their words as granted". In other words, we should be skeptical, not literally shut them out.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> we should be skeptical, not literally shut them out To be fair, this isn’t obvious from the top comment. Another comment literally argues for shutting them out [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48660630
	▲	simianwords 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I see an interesting schism in the discussion - there are two camps here. One is normative: listen to tech CEO's if you want to predict what will happen. Another is positive: let CEO's tell you what ought to happen. What happened here was the original commenter talked about listening to Reid for normative reason but the conversation got derailed into ignoring CEO's for positive statements. This is something I see often where one talks about what would happen but people barge in to signal their ethics and morals instead.

▲

buellerbueller 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Companies lie.

▲

petilon 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Yes, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to them. You listen to them and you evaluate their claims.

	▲	tripledry an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		You are correct, I simply mean we should keep in mind that they are also selling something. If you ask an AWS consultant what the best solution for your problem is, don't be surprised if the answer is AWS.
	▲	__alexs 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		To be truly impartial I don't think you should even evaluate their claims directly. This allows them to focus the comparison on things they care about, not the things you care about. Instead you should decide what problems you need solving, and evaluate solutions to those problems against your own rubric.
	▲	buellerbueller 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It seems to me that the original poster meant "listen" in the sense of "believe," not "listen" in the sense of "hear."
	▲	bckr 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		“Listen” is being used in a non-literal way here, with the meaning “to accept as true”.

▲

peterspath 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Humans lie

▲

buellerbueller 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Companies exist to influence others.

▲

JumpCrisscross 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What do you think anyone talking to the press or commenting on social media is up to?

	▲	buellerbueller 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Every company exists to get money; it is literally their lifeblood. Not every human on social media or talking to the press is trying to influence others in a survival situation. Go touch grass.

▲

peterspath 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Companies are organisations of people that have a common goal.

Yes to make money so they can provide a roof and food for their families.

But also other goals. To invent. To create. To provide goods and services.

People lie.