To me, this addendum makes it worse. Making small edits to a post like this makes it seem like you're doubling down on the original resentful points, especially with all the new justifications like "a trillion dollar company fired the first shot." Should have just deleted the blog post in its entirety imho.

>outstanding relationships with essentially everyone who openly uses Zig and talks about it publicly

Essentially everyone? more blogposts incoming?

>>outstanding relationships with essentially everyone who openly uses Zig and talks about it publicly

> Essentially everyone? more blogposts incoming?

Andrew is explicitly saying the opposite, but you're entitled to your supposition that that is bluster, I suppose.

I don't think the style of multiple revisions to walk back the most problematic parts really helps the case. It very much leaves me with the impression that the original version is the one that the author really meant, with the revisions being just a weak attempt to deflect criticism.

So if you leave a post unchanged, it's proof you meant what you wrote; and if you edit it, it's even stronger proof you meant what you wrote, even if the edits signify some change.

I understand that many interpretations are open in such things, but this kind of logic seems ridiculous.

That's even worse.