But let's leave aside the way it's crafted, and look at the core proposal : the article seems to suggest that growing too fast reduce how well the company is perceived, or how efficient it may be.
But as you said, no evidence is provided. It could just be a survivor bias.
Also, considering how people keep talking about "the next big thing" and companies with double digits growth rate, there could even be counter evidence to this claim.
Is it necessary for posters to submit messages containing wild speculations not backed with evidence, or even with some counter evidence ?
I wish it was possible to downvote some articles to reclaim the (collectively) lost time - 10 seconds by thousands of people - or to avoid starting a reasoning on false premises.
I for one enjoy it when I'm told how and why some idea is wrong, and where deadends are. Too bad this can't be done yet on HN.
But let's leave aside the way it's crafted, and look at the core proposal : the article seems to suggest that growing too fast reduce how well the company is perceived, or how efficient it may be.
But as you said, no evidence is provided. It could just be a survivor bias.
Also, considering how people keep talking about "the next big thing" and companies with double digits growth rate, there could even be counter evidence to this claim.
Is it necessary for posters to submit messages containing wild speculations not backed with evidence, or even with some counter evidence ?
I wish it was possible to downvote some articles to reclaim the (collectively) lost time - 10 seconds by thousands of people - or to avoid starting a reasoning on false premises.
I for one enjoy it when I'm told how and why some idea is wrong, and where deadends are. Too bad this can't be done yet on HN.