3 ms·
As to (1) see my post above, please. 2) HN guidelines specifically prohibit questioning whether someone read an article. Noted, thanks. But general principle
by kafkaesq 10y ago
As to (1) see my post above, please.
2) HN guidelines specifically prohibit questioning whether someone read an article.
Noted, thanks. But general principles dictate one should also be more circumspect in addressing the circumstances of persons who have committed suicide (apparently after suffering a great deal of anguish). It seemed the person I was responding to was belittling those circumstances, in this case.
- Chris2048 10y ago> It seemed the person I was responding to was belittling those circumstances, in this case. I disagree, the article still contains no indication of fault on Ubers part - it's entirely that Thomas was finding the job stressful, which may have contributed to his suicide. Further, if by "circumspect in addressing the circumstances" you mean considering that Uber could be at fault is beside the point - I said the article gives no indication of how Uber is at fault, only the fact of the suicide and the implication of blame. I think a published article should be more circumspect of pointing the finger like this - Uber may have its day in court, but not before the accusation harms its reputation.
- kafkaesq 10y agoI said the article gives no indication of how Uber is at fault, Well, we disagree then.