4 ms·
Three days is quite a long time to be late, so I'd hope someone over there is getting a reprimand, but yeah, it's also not a disaster. They're response and time
by scaryclam 9y ago
Three days is quite a long time to be late, so I'd hope someone over there is getting a reprimand, but yeah, it's also not a disaster. They're response and time to remedy this will be more telling I think.
- mynameisvlad 9y agoThree days over a weekend, though. Context matters. Even if it's the most critical incident, you can't force employees to work outside of business hours.
- Karunamon 9y agoExcept they claimed to support it a long time before this. It’s not that they were late, it’s that they lied.
- mynameisvlad 9y agoThat makes no difference as to when the three days where. I never made any claims as to why it's late or them lying. I merely clarified that the three days were over a period where people don't usually work.
- mannykannot 9y agoKarunamon et. al. are not saying your point is wrong; they are saying it is irrelevant, and if their facts are correct then they are right.
- mtgx 9y agoIt's not about them being late these 3 days. It's about them lying about having already implemented this months ago.
- naraniano 9y agoHow do you know they lied? What if they implemented it but simply did not flip the switch?
- mannykannot 9y ago'Lie' is indeed a strong term, informally suggesting an intent to deceive. Personally, I would suspect negligence and incompetence rather than deceit, but negligence is a serious matter here.
- Karunamon 9y agoGiven the general crappiness of the CA industry, my first instinct is to say they willfully said "yeah we support it" without actually doing it first, knowing that it wasn't actually done.
- gus_massa 9y agoThe ballot was in March, so they have 6 month to prepare for it, not only 3 days to implement a surprising change.
- wbl 9y agoThese 3 days don't matter when you have months of lead time.