No, I don't agree. I directly address the problems by arguing that they aren't actually problems. I feel I plainly stated the reality of the situation as it was described, and was not manipulative and accusatory in any way. I do not appreciate your characterization however.
I will likely not respond further as this will quickly become non constructive.
> I will likely not respond further as this will quickly become non constructive.
It was non-constructive from the moment you made your comment with highly manipulative phrases like "Seems like a very weird way of blaming a well defined system for your unwillingness to meet its prerequisites", "You are capable of this, just apparently too lazy or unwilling for some unclear reason", "For those of us who managed to", and "Just bizarre." Your comment does not meet the HN guidelines, was not constructive, and was downvoted and flagged accordingly.
> No, I don't agree. I directly address the problems by arguing that they aren't actually problems. I feel I plainly stated the reality of the situation as it was described, and was not manipulative and accusatory in any way. I do not appreciate your characterization however.
You can't argue that something isn't a problem when it is self-evident. Trying to do so is manipulative, regardless of whether or not you appreciate that fact.
This sounds like something I would expect to hear from an MBA, not an engineer.
I will likely not respond further as this will quickly become non constructive.