5 ms·

Wild accusations that someone works for a company are unwarranted.

earth2mars 6y ago
sorry about it. but I am not wrong though. they do work for apple. Now I get banned for this. fine! I don't need a voice to read great intellectuals on HN. With that I stop here! Apple can do whatever they want. who am I! https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- simonh 6y ago
  That shows that Saagar works for Apple, not that Improvotter works for Apple which was your original claim. At least get your own ravings straight. Saagar’s objection wasn’t perfectly reasonable. Your trolling and invective has no place here.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    *worked at Apple
  - earth2mars 6y ago
    I can only verify as he had public profile, I am 51% sure the improvetter probably is also. but saying that is against policy. So, I keep my mouth shut. I can only see some bias going on here. all I am saying is user should have the freedom and business should have freedom to repair as long as they are not claiming its apple original part or using their brand in any means and this case it doesn't look like!
    - simonh 6y ago
      So to summarise you have no evidence at all that Imporvotter works for Apple or not, and when an Apple employee objected to you using 'Apple Employee' effectively as an insult you don't think he has a right to be offended by that. Oh boy. Thanks the heavens I don't have the misfortune of knowing you in person.
Tallasatree 6y ago
yeesh. I wish someone would 'attack' me by accusing me of working at apple. A boy can dream...
justinclift 6y ago
As the sibling comment shows via @saagarjha's resume, @saagarjha does work for Apple and is attempting to suppress comments unfriendly to them.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  You're certainly not the first, nor do I have any misconceptions that you will be the last, person to claim this. As my evidently readily accessible resume shows, I do not work for Apple, though I did for two brief periods in the past. To round out this "disclosure" I hold no stake in the company other than perhaps what might be part of VLXVX, which I haven't looked at all that closely. But back to the point: I have not "suppressed" the comments; in fact I chose to respond in good faith to a fairly clear violation of Hacker News's guidelines (which interestingly enough happened to be an accusation lobbied at 'Improvotter, not me) as I am a bit reluctant to use the other tools such as downvoting or flagging. You're free to dig through my 13,000 comments if you'd like to discover cases where I have done this even when the topic is not Apple.
  - justinclift 6y ago
    My bad, you worked for Apple. Clearly there is a conflict of interest you didn't disclose. That being said, I do agree the original comment in this thread wasn't appropriate either.
    - earth2mars 6y ago
      thank you! and thank you Saagar for reminding me to policies. I just saw them. Either way, my point is simple. If a person pays for the device, they should have the right to do whatever they want with that device. A business should be able to replace with after market parts, just like any car (where I don't go to showroom to replace the original part, but after market because sometimes they are equally good or i could afford to break my glass twice instead of paying hefty for apple care! its that simple. I am all for freedom of choice as a user. If the business brands it as original iphone part, then they have the right to sue them, but in this case its not!

sorry about it. but I am not wrong though. they do work for apple. Now I get banned for this. fine! I don't need a voice to read great intellectuals on HN. With that I stop here! Apple can do whatever they want. who am I! https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf https://saagarjha.com/resume.pdf

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
simonh 6y ago
That shows that Saagar works for Apple, not that Improvotter works for Apple which was your original claim. At least get your own ravings straight. Saagar’s objection wasn’t perfectly reasonable. Your trolling and invective has no place here.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  *worked at Apple
- earth2mars 6y ago
  I can only verify as he had public profile, I am 51% sure the improvetter probably is also. but saying that is against policy. So, I keep my mouth shut. I can only see some bias going on here. all I am saying is user should have the freedom and business should have freedom to repair as long as they are not claiming its apple original part or using their brand in any means and this case it doesn't look like!
  - simonh 6y ago
    So to summarise you have no evidence at all that Imporvotter works for Apple or not, and when an Apple employee objected to you using 'Apple Employee' effectively as an insult you don't think he has a right to be offended by that. Oh boy. Thanks the heavens I don't have the misfortune of knowing you in person.

Tallasatree 6y ago

yeesh. I wish someone would 'attack' me by accusing me of working at apple. A boy can dream...

justinclift 6y ago

As the sibling comment shows via @saagarjha's resume, @saagarjha does work for Apple and is attempting to suppress comments unfriendly to them.

saagarjha 6y ago
You're certainly not the first, nor do I have any misconceptions that you will be the last, person to claim this. As my evidently readily accessible resume shows, I do not work for Apple, though I did for two brief periods in the past. To round out this "disclosure" I hold no stake in the company other than perhaps what might be part of VLXVX, which I haven't looked at all that closely. But back to the point: I have not "suppressed" the comments; in fact I chose to respond in good faith to a fairly clear violation of Hacker News's guidelines (which interestingly enough happened to be an accusation lobbied at 'Improvotter, not me) as I am a bit reluctant to use the other tools such as downvoting or flagging. You're free to dig through my 13,000 comments if you'd like to discover cases where I have done this even when the topic is not Apple.
- justinclift 6y ago
  My bad, you worked for Apple. Clearly there is a conflict of interest you didn't disclose. That being said, I do agree the original comment in this thread wasn't appropriate either.
  - earth2mars 6y ago
    thank you! and thank you Saagar for reminding me to policies. I just saw them. Either way, my point is simple. If a person pays for the device, they should have the right to do whatever they want with that device. A business should be able to replace with after market parts, just like any car (where I don't go to showroom to replace the original part, but after market because sometimes they are equally good or i could afford to break my glass twice instead of paying hefty for apple care! its that simple. I am all for freedom of choice as a user. If the business brands it as original iphone part, then they have the right to sue them, but in this case its not!