3 ms·

No, you're misunderstanding the point. If the headline would be "Rippling had to switch banks after...", it would be accurate and not clickbait. The headline i

No, you're misunderstanding the point. If the headline would be "Rippling had to switch banks after...", it would be accurate and not clickbait. The headline is "Rippling has to delay payouts after..." though, which is completely different. They haven't delayed payouts. Some payouts are delayed, because they were in flight when the plane crashed. That's not "delaying payouts", that's "payouts are delayed". They'd would be "delaying payouts" if they said "we're only resuming payouts starting on Friday", but that's not what's happening. It's like Amazon shipping a product. The product gets eaten by the courier. Amazon sends out a new product. Your shipment is delayed, but Amazon isn't delaying it. The eating delayed it, not Amazon. Just because they "had to" do one thing doesn't mean a headline can claim they "had to" do other things. Like, a similar headline would be "Rippling had to defraud the government after...". Totally inaccurate, they didn't do that. It's not about the "had to", it's about the "did they actually delay payments", which is an active process and requires intent. They didn't, and that makes the headline inaccurate.

jjulius 4y ago
>... it's about the "did they actually delay payments", which is an active process and requires intent. You mean like making the big decision to switch banks during a crisis like this knowing that payments would likely be delayed as a part of the process? Huh, would ya look at that. If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew what would, or could, happen and they said, "Do it". If we really want to compare this to Amazon, the correct analogy would be, "This item ships to you every two weeks. It would normally arrive today, but Amazon chose to switch carriers at the last minute which requires package re-routing, so it will arrive in two days". There wouldn't have been a delay if Amazon (or Rippling) hadn't switched carriers (or banks).
- luckylion 4y ago
  Payments are delayed that already were underway because the failed bank didn't actually send the money. So they switched banks and send everything else via JP Morgan so that it doesn't get delayed. They're not switching banks and delaying payments because of that. > If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew what would happen and they said, "Do it". No, the delay is because of the failing of the bank they used. Certainly, if they had known that this bank would be taken over and not actually execute the orders and just cease to exist, and they still would have said "do it", then they'd be to blame. But they weren't aware that the bank would stop operating suddenly, just like everyone else (including the bank itself, apparently). > There wouldn't have been a delay if Amazon (or Rippling) hadn't switched carriers (or banks). Of course there would be. If they hadn't switched, the payments that were in flight when the bank shut down would still not be completed, and additional payments would also not go through until the situation at the bank is resolved in some way or another. Like, if one plane crashes, and you want some cargo to arrive somewhere, of course you send a different plane, even though it can't arrive at the same time as the original plane. Not doing so would actually delay the whole thing, and that would've been a choice. But that's simply not what happened.

jjulius 4y ago

>... it's about the "did they actually delay payments", which is an active process and requires intent. You mean like making the big decision to switch banks during a crisis like this knowing that payments would likely be delayed as a part of the process? Huh, would ya look at that. If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew what would, or could, happen and they said, "Do it". If we really want to compare this to Amazon, the correct analogy would be, "This item ships to you every two weeks. It would normally arrive today, but Amazon chose to switch carriers at the last minute which requires package re-routing, so it will arrive in two days". There wouldn't have been a delay if Amazon (or Rippling) hadn't switched carriers (or banks).

luckylion 4y ago
Payments are delayed that already were underway because the failed bank didn't actually send the money. So they switched banks and send everything else via JP Morgan so that it doesn't get delayed. They're not switching banks and delaying payments because of that. > If you're aware of the fallout that will occur when you make a decision, and you still make that decision, it's your fault. They knew what would happen and they said, "Do it". No, the delay is because of the failing of the bank they used. Certainly, if they had known that this bank would be taken over and not actually execute the orders and just cease to exist, and they still would have said "do it", then they'd be to blame. But they weren't aware that the bank would stop operating suddenly, just like everyone else (including the bank itself, apparently). > There wouldn't have been a delay if Amazon (or Rippling) hadn't switched carriers (or banks). Of course there would be. If they hadn't switched, the payments that were in flight when the bank shut down would still not be completed, and additional payments would also not go through until the situation at the bank is resolved in some way or another. Like, if one plane crashes, and you want some cargo to arrive somewhere, of course you send a different plane, even though it can't arrive at the same time as the original plane. Not doing so would actually delay the whole thing, and that would've been a choice. But that's simply not what happened.