4 ms·

>The article headline is clickbait. Oh? Okay, let's see, it starts with... >SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts... And then you said... >The only

>The article headline is clickbait. Oh? Okay, let's see, it starts with... >SF payroll firm Rippling has to delay payouts... And then you said... >The only delay is because... So, two sentences later you've confirmed the headline's accuracy yourself.

crote 4y ago
No, there is a substantial difference between the two. GP says that Rippling did not delay payouts. In fact, the payouts went out in time - they were delayed in transit, outside of Rippling's control, and Rippling immediately made another payout through a different bank. The headline suggests that there were issues at Rippling, which meant that the payouts did not go out in time. That is a completely different scenario, so the headline would indeed be inaccurate.
- jjulius 4y ago
  I mean, there are issues at Rippling. They had to switch banks and it caused a delay in getting payments to their clients' employees. That's a fact. Yes, the issue was caused by their bank and not Rippling themselves, but the purpose of the article is to highlight how a separate company is impacted by the SVB fallout. At the end of the day, it's still an issue Rippling has to deal with. I mean, that's why the headline goes on to say, "after SVB collapse". It makes clear that Rippling is suffering because of SVB.
- hartator 4y ago
  How it is not Rippling responsibility which bank they use? We are not even arguing responsibilities anyway. There are delays if you are using Rippling which is the title.
  - luckylion 4y ago
    No. Amazon ships you a product with UPS. UPS notifies Amazon that their driver has eaten the package and they're very sorry. Amazon ships out a new package. The new package, provided the driver doesn't eat it, will arrive delayed. But Amazon didn't delay it, nor do they "have to" delay sending packages. "SF payroll firm Rippling finds some payouts delayed" would be accurate. "Has to delay" implies that they "had to" make a choice to delay payments, e.g. because they don't have the funds available. Yes, it's a subtle change in wording, but it's a very different issue.
    - jen20 4y ago
      > But Amazon didn't delay it Yes, they did by their choice if provider. Services are end to end, you don’t get to pass off responsibility for things like that.
      - luckylion 4y ago
        No, generally we only consider active choices to be something someone chose to do. If UPS had a history of drivers eating every other package, you might argue that it's a risk that's baked in, but they don't. And neither did this bank have a history of breaking down. If your car is on fire and then explodes, nobody would say "jen20 had to detonate their car", because it implies that you pushed a button to make it explode. "Well, they could have known that that brand of cars has a 1 in 1000000000 chance of blowing up, so they did it by choice of car" isn't something you'll hear.
        jen20 4y ago
        If I order a package from Amazon, and it doesn’t show up on time and in the condition, I blame Amazon, not their subcontractor with whom I have no relationship. A longer supply chain does not mean the divestiture of responsibility. Note I am NOT suggesting that every package must arrive on time, just that when they do not, it is Amazon who must perform the service recovery rather than a delivery company. That is no different in this case.
        luckylion 4y ago
        > I blame Amazon, not their subcontractor with whom I have no relationship Totally. But you wouldn't say that "Amazon chose to delay my package", you'd say "my package got delayed, UPS should really make sure not to use that package-eating driver or Amazon should stop using UPS". "Amazon delayed my package" = "Amazon intentionally delayed my package so that it doesn't arrive on time". "My Amazon package got delayed" = "The package got delayed, but no intention is implied or expected". In both cases it's on Amazon to get you your package, but in one case Amazon is after you and is intentionally holding back packages instead of shipping them to you.
- more_corn 4y ago
  Tomato tomato. If you were expecting your paycheck today it’s not coming till Monday at the earliest. That’s a delay.
sokoloff 4y ago
Sometimes banks really do hate #7. Sometimes you really won’t believe #11. Accuracy alone is not an ironclad defense against clickbait.

crote 4y ago

No, there is a substantial difference between the two. GP says that Rippling did not delay payouts. In fact, the payouts went out in time - they were delayed in transit, outside of Rippling's control, and Rippling immediately made another payout through a different bank. The headline suggests that there were issues at Rippling, which meant that the payouts did not go out in time. That is a completely different scenario, so the headline would indeed be inaccurate.

jjulius 4y ago
I mean, there are issues at Rippling. They had to switch banks and it caused a delay in getting payments to their clients' employees. That's a fact. Yes, the issue was caused by their bank and not Rippling themselves, but the purpose of the article is to highlight how a separate company is impacted by the SVB fallout. At the end of the day, it's still an issue Rippling has to deal with. I mean, that's why the headline goes on to say, "after SVB collapse". It makes clear that Rippling is suffering because of SVB.
hartator 4y ago
How it is not Rippling responsibility which bank they use? We are not even arguing responsibilities anyway. There are delays if you are using Rippling which is the title.
- luckylion 4y ago
  No. Amazon ships you a product with UPS. UPS notifies Amazon that their driver has eaten the package and they're very sorry. Amazon ships out a new package. The new package, provided the driver doesn't eat it, will arrive delayed. But Amazon didn't delay it, nor do they "have to" delay sending packages. "SF payroll firm Rippling finds some payouts delayed" would be accurate. "Has to delay" implies that they "had to" make a choice to delay payments, e.g. because they don't have the funds available. Yes, it's a subtle change in wording, but it's a very different issue.
  - jen20 4y ago
    > But Amazon didn't delay it Yes, they did by their choice if provider. Services are end to end, you don’t get to pass off responsibility for things like that.
    - luckylion 4y ago
      No, generally we only consider active choices to be something someone chose to do. If UPS had a history of drivers eating every other package, you might argue that it's a risk that's baked in, but they don't. And neither did this bank have a history of breaking down. If your car is on fire and then explodes, nobody would say "jen20 had to detonate their car", because it implies that you pushed a button to make it explode. "Well, they could have known that that brand of cars has a 1 in 1000000000 chance of blowing up, so they did it by choice of car" isn't something you'll hear.
      - jen20 4y ago
        If I order a package from Amazon, and it doesn’t show up on time and in the condition, I blame Amazon, not their subcontractor with whom I have no relationship. A longer supply chain does not mean the divestiture of responsibility. Note I am NOT suggesting that every package must arrive on time, just that when they do not, it is Amazon who must perform the service recovery rather than a delivery company. That is no different in this case.
        luckylion 4y ago
        > I blame Amazon, not their subcontractor with whom I have no relationship Totally. But you wouldn't say that "Amazon chose to delay my package", you'd say "my package got delayed, UPS should really make sure not to use that package-eating driver or Amazon should stop using UPS". "Amazon delayed my package" = "Amazon intentionally delayed my package so that it doesn't arrive on time". "My Amazon package got delayed" = "The package got delayed, but no intention is implied or expected". In both cases it's on Amazon to get you your package, but in one case Amazon is after you and is intentionally holding back packages instead of shipping them to you.
more_corn 4y ago
Tomato tomato. If you were expecting your paycheck today it’s not coming till Monday at the earliest. That’s a delay.

sokoloff 4y ago

Sometimes banks really do hate #7. Sometimes you really won’t believe #11. Accuracy alone is not an ironclad defense against clickbait.