4 ms·

Lufthansa to Gray Powell: Drinks are on us

22 points by borism 17y ago

mrshoe 17y ago
I can't think of a better way to make him feel better about the situation than allowing him to personally cash in on it.</sarcasm> This guy is working hard to earn back the trust and respect of his peers, whom he undoubtedly feels he let down in a big way. Lufthansa will never hear from him.
- stevenbrianhall 17y ago
  I think you absolutely have a point, but it would be better stated that "So long as he remains employed at Apple, Lufthansa will never hear from him."
  - borism 17y ago
    *if he didn't "lose" that prototype on directions of his employer
mantas 17y ago
1. hack your iPhone's case 2. sell it to some blog 3. ????? 4. PROFIT!!!!
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
zackattack 17y ago
AWESOME.
AlexBlom 17y ago
Now that's a PR stunt if I ever saw one...blogging!
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
TomOfTTB 17y ago
Here’s the irony. In a previous thread I debated with people about Gizmodo revealing this man’s name. My point was that journalists have a responsibility not to filter the news because their profession needs to hold truth as its highest value and not censor details based on their own subjective judgment of what is relevant. (I got downvoted as far as each comment could go during that debate thank you very much) But this offer makes me realize an important point I didn’t make in that debate: If he is fired this guy’s best chance at getting a new job is BECAUSE Gizmodo revealed his name. Just like with this beer offer sympathy for him actually creates benefits. Had Gizmodo not revealed his name he’d just be a guy who was fired for incompetence which doesn’t look good on the resume. Now at least his story has been told. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not arguing that the good will outweigh the bad for him because I simply don’t know. What I am arguing is that it’s a reporters job to report the truth and the reason they shouldn’t start censoring details based on their own preferences is because they can’t foresee what the consequences of such an action would be (good or bad)
- goatforce5 17y ago
  News organisations are nothing but filters - a lot of stuff happens, and they're supposed to be a lens on to what's important ("people died!")... Which unfortunately has to include what people want to know ("Paris Hilton got a dog!").

22 points by borism 17y ago

I can't think of a better way to make him feel better about the situation than allowing him to personally cash in on it.</sarcasm> This guy is working hard to earn back the trust and respect of his peers, whom he undoubtedly feels he let down in a big way. Lufthansa will never hear from him.

stevenbrianhall 17y ago
I think you absolutely have a point, but it would be better stated that "So long as he remains employed at Apple, Lufthansa will never hear from him."
- borism 17y ago
  *if he didn't "lose" that prototype on directions of his employer

mantas 17y ago

1. hack your iPhone's case 2. sell it to some blog 3. ????? 4. PROFIT!!!!

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

zackattack 17y ago

AWESOME.

AlexBlom 17y ago

Now that's a PR stunt if I ever saw one...blogging!

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

TomOfTTB 17y ago

Here’s the irony. In a previous thread I debated with people about Gizmodo revealing this man’s name. My point was that journalists have a responsibility not to filter the news because their profession needs to hold truth as its highest value and not censor details based on their own subjective judgment of what is relevant. (I got downvoted as far as each comment could go during that debate thank you very much) But this offer makes me realize an important point I didn’t make in that debate: If he is fired this guy’s best chance at getting a new job is BECAUSE Gizmodo revealed his name. Just like with this beer offer sympathy for him actually creates benefits. Had Gizmodo not revealed his name he’d just be a guy who was fired for incompetence which doesn’t look good on the resume. Now at least his story has been told. Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not arguing that the good will outweigh the bad for him because I simply don’t know. What I am arguing is that it’s a reporters job to report the truth and the reason they shouldn’t start censoring details based on their own preferences is because they can’t foresee what the consequences of such an action would be (good or bad)

goatforce5 17y ago
News organisations are nothing but filters - a lot of stuff happens, and they're supposed to be a lens on to what's important ("people died!")... Which unfortunately has to include what people want to know ("Paris Hilton got a dog!").