3 ms·
My point was that while the linked article was interesting, it didn't explain why it was renamed (although the author did do so in this thread.)
by jaredsohn 13y ago
My point was that while the linked article was interesting, it didn't explain why it was renamed (although the author did do so in this thread.)
- ulisesrmzroche 13y agoI agree with you there. Thats some crucial information that should have been put in the article rather than explained in this thread where no one is ever likely to see it.
- jaredsohn 13y agoYou're not understanding me. (This isn't too important, but I'll explain.) dmix asked why the company was renamed. ics referred dmix to a post. I pointed out that the post ics pointed to doesn't answer dmix's question. wycats had written this in the past and shouldn't be accountable to ics linking to it for this purpose.
- ics 13y agoI knew that the article did not specifically address the change but at least made it clear that the change had been in place for some time. It was my mistake for forgetting to include reference to the tweet from wycat which did specifically address the question.