4 ms·

Matt - i'm not your lawyer, but you should shut up. Employers generally have an obligation to keep personal data confidential, especially sensitive information

Matt - i'm not your lawyer, but you should shut up. Employers generally have an obligation to keep personal data confidential, especially sensitive information like a job application. Whether that applies in this particular case or not, i'm not going to offer an opinion, but you really should shut up. I get that it's particularly frustrating and hard to feel like you are being unfairly treated or whatever, but shut up anyway.

serial_dev 2y ago
Just let the man speak, he probably didn’t listen to his own lawyers why you think he will listen to you? As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  I understand that. As an uninvolved outsider, this is a first-row seat I don’t usually have. It’s fascinating! But my better angel wants me to duck tape his mouth shut before he does himself dirty. Edit: Or if you’re a WPE fan, my better angel says to keep talking! Explain it all away! Share it all!
- edanm 2y ago
  > As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking. You really shouldn't, IMO. For one thing, what parent poster is saying is that he might be violating someone's privacy. I get that that's fun from the sidelines, but I certainly don't think we should encourage employers to violate other people's privacy. For another, we have a court system with lots of rules around it for a reason. These threads help people form opinions, but the truth is that none of the protections in place in a courtroom apply here. He, or his opposite party, could literally be lying about everything they're saying here and there's no way for us to know or evaluate it. He could be bringing up totally irrelevant facts while not talking about the actual important things, with his counterparty correctly not talking about it, but leaving the impression that there is nothing there. Etc.
  - krisoft 2y ago
    > parent poster is saying is that he might be violating someone's privacy As you say it is terrible, and they should not have done that. Irrespective of the legal outcome it taints them in my eye forever. That being said that particular horse has left the barn already. It is not like us third parties gigling from the sidelines will affect it. > These threads help people form opinions, but the truth is that none of the protections in place in a courtroom apply here. Yeah sure. People on the internet can lie. It is not like we believe everything which comes out of the mouth of any party ever. That is not a reason for me wishing them to shut up. It would be in their best interest to stop talking. But it is not our job as third parties to enforce that or even encourage it. We are not his legal representation, nor we are his fairy godmother. > He, or his opposite party, could literally be lying about everything they're saying… Yes. > … and there's no way for us to know or evaluate it. That is not true. We can hear them out and then apply our logic, look at the things presented and can absolutely evaluate them. We don’t have as strong tools as people in a court case do. For example we can’t subpoena them, nor can we demand discovery. But that is how 99.9% of our interactions are. It is not like we only have to engage our critical faculties when it is about a court case. They have to be always engaged. And it is important to remember that the likely outcome of any such evaluation is that “there is not enough info for me to know for certain”. That is not some weird edge case of critical thinking, but the default state of things.
    - edanm 2y ago
      > That is not true. We can hear them out and then apply our logic, look at the things presented and can absolutely evaluate them. We don’t have as strong tools as people in a court case do. For example we can’t subpoena them, nor can we demand discovery. But that is how 99.9% of our interactions are. It is not like we only have to engage our critical faculties when it is about a court case. They have to be always engaged. You're right, I spoke more strongly than warranted. I was getting at this distinction - in a court case, there are real tools, both legal and investigative, that let you determine truth to a much higher degree than in random internet (or real life) conversations. What I highly dislike is that the person who is acting responsibly legally, and who is probably acting more responsibly by trusting the court system to determine what should happen, is always the party that doesn't engage in this kind of talk. The side acting irresponsibly is trying to change public perception by sidestepping the actual legal mechanisms here, and we shouldn't usually let them. (I'm speaking generally, in this case I feel less strongly because a lot of this is public knowledge.)
pensatoio 2y ago
He has no self control. His interview on The Primeagen was especially telling. It’s deeply personal for him. His interactions with the WPEngine staff are all spoken about like casual personal relationships. Nothing was handled professionally. No matter who’s right, or to what extent, he’s publicly digging himself a hole.
- vasco 2y ago
  I mean not only he hopped on a live stream to babble before going to court, he bragged about it and said the WP Engine people are afraid to do the same. This is school yard level big brain moves. https://ma.tt/2024/09/on-theprimeagen/ https://ma.tt/2024/09/on-theprimeagen/ > I dropped on the livestream for ThePrimeagen earlier today after a colleague pinged me that he was talking about the Silver Lake / WP Engine situation. > Afterward, I also privately shared with him the cell phone for Heather Brunner, the WP Engine CEO, so she can hop on or debate these points. As far as I’ve heard she hasn’t responded. Why is WP Engine scared of talking to journalists live?
  - justinclift 2y ago
    > Why is WP Engine scared of talking to journalists live? You're meaning apart from the active law suit yeah? ;)
  - joshmanders 2y ago
    Yo real talk, big props to Primeagen for not calling and harassing Heather despite Matt giving him her number completely unprompted.
    - lambda-dev 2y ago
      Or maybe not. From the PDF: > For instance, on September 26, 2024, Mullenweg gave an interview on the X platform during which he gave the CEO’s personal cell phone number to the interviewer and encouraged him to contact her. She was in fact contacted by the interviewer.

serial_dev 2y ago

Just let the man speak, he probably didn’t listen to his own lawyers why you think he will listen to you? As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking.

kstrauser 2y ago
I understand that. As an uninvolved outsider, this is a first-row seat I don’t usually have. It’s fascinating! But my better angel wants me to duck tape his mouth shut before he does himself dirty. Edit: Or if you’re a WPE fan, my better angel says to keep talking! Explain it all away! Share it all!
edanm 2y ago
> As the audience, with no horse in this race, I’m glad he keeps talking. You really shouldn't, IMO. For one thing, what parent poster is saying is that he might be violating someone's privacy. I get that that's fun from the sidelines, but I certainly don't think we should encourage employers to violate other people's privacy. For another, we have a court system with lots of rules around it for a reason. These threads help people form opinions, but the truth is that none of the protections in place in a courtroom apply here. He, or his opposite party, could literally be lying about everything they're saying here and there's no way for us to know or evaluate it. He could be bringing up totally irrelevant facts while not talking about the actual important things, with his counterparty correctly not talking about it, but leaving the impression that there is nothing there. Etc.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > parent poster is saying is that he might be violating someone's privacy As you say it is terrible, and they should not have done that. Irrespective of the legal outcome it taints them in my eye forever. That being said that particular horse has left the barn already. It is not like us third parties gigling from the sidelines will affect it. > These threads help people form opinions, but the truth is that none of the protections in place in a courtroom apply here. Yeah sure. People on the internet can lie. It is not like we believe everything which comes out of the mouth of any party ever. That is not a reason for me wishing them to shut up. It would be in their best interest to stop talking. But it is not our job as third parties to enforce that or even encourage it. We are not his legal representation, nor we are his fairy godmother. > He, or his opposite party, could literally be lying about everything they're saying… Yes. > … and there's no way for us to know or evaluate it. That is not true. We can hear them out and then apply our logic, look at the things presented and can absolutely evaluate them. We don’t have as strong tools as people in a court case do. For example we can’t subpoena them, nor can we demand discovery. But that is how 99.9% of our interactions are. It is not like we only have to engage our critical faculties when it is about a court case. They have to be always engaged. And it is important to remember that the likely outcome of any such evaluation is that “there is not enough info for me to know for certain”. That is not some weird edge case of critical thinking, but the default state of things.
  - edanm 2y ago
    > That is not true. We can hear them out and then apply our logic, look at the things presented and can absolutely evaluate them. We don’t have as strong tools as people in a court case do. For example we can’t subpoena them, nor can we demand discovery. But that is how 99.9% of our interactions are. It is not like we only have to engage our critical faculties when it is about a court case. They have to be always engaged. You're right, I spoke more strongly than warranted. I was getting at this distinction - in a court case, there are real tools, both legal and investigative, that let you determine truth to a much higher degree than in random internet (or real life) conversations. What I highly dislike is that the person who is acting responsibly legally, and who is probably acting more responsibly by trusting the court system to determine what should happen, is always the party that doesn't engage in this kind of talk. The side acting irresponsibly is trying to change public perception by sidestepping the actual legal mechanisms here, and we shouldn't usually let them. (I'm speaking generally, in this case I feel less strongly because a lot of this is public knowledge.)

pensatoio 2y ago

He has no self control. His interview on The Primeagen was especially telling. It’s deeply personal for him. His interactions with the WPEngine staff are all spoken about like casual personal relationships. Nothing was handled professionally. No matter who’s right, or to what extent, he’s publicly digging himself a hole.

vasco 2y ago
I mean not only he hopped on a live stream to babble before going to court, he bragged about it and said the WP Engine people are afraid to do the same. This is school yard level big brain moves. https://ma.tt/2024/09/on-theprimeagen/ https://ma.tt/2024/09/on-theprimeagen/ > I dropped on the livestream for ThePrimeagen earlier today after a colleague pinged me that he was talking about the Silver Lake / WP Engine situation. > Afterward, I also privately shared with him the cell phone for Heather Brunner, the WP Engine CEO, so she can hop on or debate these points. As far as I’ve heard she hasn’t responded. Why is WP Engine scared of talking to journalists live?
- justinclift 2y ago
  > Why is WP Engine scared of talking to journalists live? You're meaning apart from the active law suit yeah? ;)
- joshmanders 2y ago
  Yo real talk, big props to Primeagen for not calling and harassing Heather despite Matt giving him her number completely unprompted.
  - lambda-dev 2y ago
    Or maybe not. From the PDF: > For instance, on September 26, 2024, Mullenweg gave an interview on the X platform during which he gave the CEO’s personal cell phone number to the interviewer and encouraged him to contact her. She was in fact contacted by the interviewer.