5 ms·
They clarified this in a comment to the original post (http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3076-i-heard-you-like-numbers?58#comments http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3
by mhartl 15y ago
They clarified this in a comment to the original post (http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3076-i-heard-you-like-numbers?58#comments http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3076-i-heard-you-like-numbers...):
Razvan Tirboaca 12 Jan 12
And a Basecamp user uploaded the 100,000,000th file
(It was a picture of a cat!)
Are you looking at your users photos?
And the response:
Taylor 12 Jan 12
Razvan, absolutely not. The file was named cat.jpg and
that was logged, which was what we saw. We do not look
at user’s files.
- biot 15y agoAnd it couldn't have been a picture of a catalog, CAT construction machinery, someone named Catherine, etc.? I guess we have to take them for their word on this one.
- evan_ 15y agowhat if it was a picture of a catalog? The file was called cat.jpg so they said it was a picture of a cat. Maybe it was a catalog. They still said it was a picture of a cat.
- ufo 15y agoThis is the internez. Its perfectly fine to expect a random jpg to be a picture of a cat accompanied by the obligatory caption)
- bch 15y agoWhat does "cat" mean? Was the next file "bnc.jpg", "grep.jpg" -- even if it had something to do w/ felines -- was it in a dir of gfx of DNA visualizations, where the image would be a GATACA sequence or something? I don't know, but these are questions that immediately come to mind for me.
- mhartl 15y agoYour response is a non sequitur. You stated There's no mention of what the filename was. Neither the basename, nor the extension. My comment merely quoted a 37signals employee giving the filename, both basename and extension. You can believe them or not, but they did explain the situation, and they explicitly denied looking at the image.