I don’t understand this question. It reads like my comment could be interpreted in some other way than I intended but I can’t figure out what that would be.
The implication is pretty overt, no?
Asking OP to explain almost seems deliberately obtuse.
You mentioned, in a decidedly technical forum, that a superior at work made a somewhat questionable tech-related decision by owning a car with dashboard software by a company whose software is commonly joked to crash frequently and be less-than-reliable.
I'm sure it was purely in lighthearted jest, but not exactly subtle given context. I'm sure your boss was/is a nice person.
I made no such implication and frankly I am astonished it would be interpreted that way, although others seem to have done the same. I'll try to avoid causing this kind of confusion in the future.
To clarify:
The context was the old jokes about putting tech in cars and how some of it is coming true. I cited an example of that happening. It happened to be my boss' car when I witnessed it.
I simply shared a personal anecdote that seemed relevant to the conversation. His car had a dashboard that crashed. He told me about it on the way to lunch. Then later when I was riding in his car it happened.
I made and make no judgement about him as a person, technologist or manager based on the kind of car he drove. Honestly that thought hadn't even crossed my mind. This is why I asked. I'm astounded I have to explain this on HN of all places but here we are.
I don’t understand this question. It reads like my comment could be interpreted in some other way than I intended but I can’t figure out what that would be.