I have a handicapped son and as I've pointed out here before, I'd appreciate it if you would choose a word that indicated the writer (in this case) decided to not live up to their potential instead of implying their potential was somehow degraded.
Those with disabilities would thank you ... they often work very hard to do things we consider "rote".
EDIT: I forgot to say that I absolutely agree with the sentiment of your comment ... reading that was brain-twistingly horrible (usually you can guess what words the author's spell-checker changed). I'm wondering if that post was typed on a phone using two big thumbs.
I sincerely apologize for my insensitivity. It was never my intention to insult people with disabilities, I'm sorry for any offense I may have caused :(
In the second one, the "I" should have quotes around it to set it off and show that it's referring to the letter, rather than the word. Pretty minor compared to the first one.
I don't see anything grammatically incorrect about the third.
Hey, Clinkle engineer here. We know Josh personally from our time together at Stanford. He really dislikes the company, and hopefully it was quite clear that the article was biased, rushed, and overall pretty unprofessional.
Would you care to explain why I'd want to use your application/service? If his article is half right and you combine the gaps and flaws with your name (which makes me think of the urinal), I think his conclusion is correct.
Note that I don't know your team or anything about your product, but you will be fighting public perception and the media. I would also say that the vapor-ware label is a bit unfair - I spent enough time in hardware businesses to know that some things take time.
Some laughingstocks really are laughingstocks ... My only recollection of Clinkle before this article was that the name might not be taken seriously (perhaps during a discussion here on HN). Who declared them to be a laughingstock? Probably not those who invested - and I'm not going to second guess the VC talent that put up their money.
Hey, non-Clinkle engineer here. I don't blame you for trying to defend the pivot, even when you can't possibly have much confidence in the offering -- who would? But personal attacks really aren't going to help you make your case.
In general, I like to give new technologies/apps a chance. I have spent some time looking at the payment space and the concept of "treats" is at least interesting. I think the name "treats" undermines what it does.
If you swipe their debit card seven times you get one of these "treats". If this caught on, the network effect may arise where people start paying for friends coffees/small gifts. The question is, is the value of rewards that are giftable > credit card's value. Not sure that it is but I'm also not sure that it is not.
The comments have been brutal but I wouldn't completely dismiss the concept just yet.
Curious what the author of that article has ever built or created. My guess is nothing. From the looks of his twitter profile, I think that is pretty much confirmed: https://twitter.com/joshconstine
So easy for those in the pseudo-journalistic world TC and much of the Tech press live in to knock down, destroy and critique.
Meanwhile, more talented folks keep building and creating....
"What Clinkle doesn’t do is allow instant peer-to-merchant payments via high frequency sounds without a like it was hoping."
"Clinkle was shooting for the kind of “Innovation” with a capital I that we laud in Silicon Valley."
"The app is certainly slick, with tons of delightful little animation flourishes."
Did their writers go full retard?