3 ms·
It might be worth the quick math. As I put (edited, really) in my top comment, it's mostly just to have an entity you can reasonably go after if they goof. A
by eganist 6y ago
It might be worth the quick math.
As I put (edited, really) in my top comment, it's mostly just to have an entity you can reasonably go after if they goof.
A related question: Considering how far back this goes, what's stopping you from naming them? Is resolution in progress, or have they just been dead silent?
- Arathorn 6y agoThey haven't been dead silent; last update was on Dec 15th saying they had been syncing with Companies House and the submission was in hand. I don't particularly want to name them though given I genuinely don't know at this point whether the bug is with Companies House or the accountants, and given the drama this has raised, I have no desire for a lynch mob to descend on them if they haven't done anything wrong.
- eganist 6y agoThat's fair. So long as they're still working with you through it (and if they goofed, are working to resolve it), it's fine. I was concerned for a moment they'd ghosted.
- teruakohatu 6y ago> what's stopping you from naming them? And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.
- eganist 6y ago> And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming. Knowing who's reliable is everything. The extended thread above yours adds extra light: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101