st3v3r

60 ms·

691.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Right away? No. But eventually, that profit motive would destroy those schools.
692.
by st3v3r 10y ago
" He took a fairly savage beating." He got a tongue lashing. He still has not faced any real consequences for what he did. "For some reason, the fact that Wells Fargo is a really big enterprise cut no ice with the various Con
693.
by st3v3r 10y ago
No, as far as WF is concerned, she REFUSED TO COMMIT FRAUD, and so that's why she was fired. And because she refused to go along, she was blacklisted. "Really? More responsible than the people who commit the act?" Absofucking
694.
by st3v3r 10y ago
How are they more so responsible for the fraud if they were fired for not doing it?
695.
by st3v3r 10y ago
He's still not actually being punished. He lost his job. Big deal; he's got a golden parachute. He's not going to go through any of the stress that any of the people he fired for this went through when they lost their jobs. H
696.
by st3v3r 10y ago
But if it was determined that the part you did was done fraudulently? That's essentially FB's position here. And their contract states that the remedy for that is account termination and forfeiture of the balance.
697.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Unless you're Oracle, Google, Apple, or Microsoft, you are not a peer with Facebook. "To clarify: I know there exists rules and regulations. But if a big player like FB can just ignore them unless someone unleashes their lawyers,
698.
by st3v3r 10y ago
No one said anything about legal threats. However, these are contractual disputes. Contracts are legal documents. Therefore, it makes sense to have the people who would know the most about contracts, contract dispute resolutions, and contra
699.
by st3v3r 10y ago
" if they can recognize them, why ban the publishers and not just remove those clicks/views? Makes no sense." Not banning them is the move that doesn't make sense. You have someone who is purposefully trying to subvert t
700.
by st3v3r 10y ago
That's extremely naive, to think that accounts with the same CC are not linked.
701.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Yes, I am. If you're going to be the one with their card on the account, you're the one on the hook if something goes wrong.
702.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Not the same situation. You transferred ownership,and after giving the gift, your involvement was done.
703.
by st3v3r 10y ago
So you combine that with the same CC number on file, and the same development machines, and now you have a very good chance the same person is responsible.
704.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I'm fairly sure you don't have the same user and CC on file as they do.
705.
by st3v3r 10y ago
If you're going to put your credit card in, then you are responsible for the account. If fraud happens on one account you are responsible for, it's not a stretch to believe that fraud could happen on other accounts you are respons
706.
by st3v3r 10y ago
If it's his credit card, then the account is his responsibility. And it's not a stretch to link accounts that are the responsibility of the same person.
707.
by st3v3r 10y ago
It's still expensive. Although it is now easier to get, it's still easier to simply join a group plan at work.
708.
by st3v3r 10y ago
As someone with a "pre-existing condition", health insurance is much easier to get with a group, like an employer, than it is on my own.
709.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"and being able to easily start a design discussion with 4 or 5 engineers when necessary is extremely valuable" I honestly do not understand this statement. Are you trying to say that if you were in cubes, you couldn't do tha
710.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Is the team actually more cohesive than if they're in cubes or offices? I've heard this argument, but I've never seen anything to back it up.
711.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I don't buy that for a second. With what gets spent on salaries, the cost of offices is a drop in the bucket.
712.
by st3v3r 10y ago
And that possibility is worth more than letting people get work done? I mean, if people don't get enough work done, you're never going to get to the point where you need to shuffle things around.
713.
by st3v3r 10y ago
The action is either harm or it's not. If I have a fence, and you run your car through it, the harm is not judged on whether I can replace the fence quickly. Further, your statement goes a step further and seeks to normalize and legiti
714.
by st3v3r 10y ago
If people are moving to other tools, you really can't say IRC is "superior for obvious reasons"
715.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I fail to see the issue. They fixed your project to stay compatible with the spec. They didn't stay, but isn't this the behavior of anyone who just fixes an issue they had in a project?
716.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Doesn't really matter. If it's part of the spec, then they should implement it.
717.
by st3v3r 10y ago
A good part of this discussion is how IRC is completely outdated. If anything, that makes those still stuck on IRC those that need to move on to "real protocols"
718.
by st3v3r 10y ago
Why is the config message bigger than the standard minimum?
719.
by st3v3r 10y ago
"If you are looking for a job, and they tell you that you needn't apply because of your race/gender/..., but there are thousands more equivalent jobs in your market that don't have such restrictions, there's no
720.
by st3v3r 10y ago
I fail to see why the ability to get a job easily should be taken into account whether you get to have a legal remedy or not. And quite frankly, I have no faith whatsoever that a boycott would work, or gain any traction at all. We have had

More ›