> And yet when she shared her experience with other women at the conference, she found that she wasn’t alone—many others had received the same treatment from the Blizzard recruitment booth as well
I would doubt that a company would publicly post this due to liability otherwise
And when there’s a documented pattern to the point that lawsuits are filed with evidence and testimony, AND the person telling the story has very little to personally gain (and a lot to lose since conservative Twitter tends to send death threats over things like this), you tend to take the one more likely.
Further, if you read the article there is a literal whole company with a business relationship that was cancelled with blizzard over this. I think you really really really should do some soul searching on what makes you have a knee-jerk reaction that they're making it up.
But also, news organizations are cognizant that their credibility takes a hit if they just publish every single accusation regardless of attribution.
I mean, some don't. But that quote was apparently from a publicly posted (on the company Twitter), redacted letter to Blizzard from the person's employer after Blizzard tried to become a customer.
Allegedly rich.
It's still not clear how rich or poor he actually is.
In any case, I very much doubt he spent any time at all in a McDonald's.
At most he would have used the drive though. More likely be sent someone else to the drive though.
It's even understandable - he's been very recognisable since before the apprentice. Would you want random bystanders asking for your autograph, or insulting you while you were trying to eat a burger?
I'm not sure what you mean, I mean what have the arguments you commented on to do with "the rich".
In the end there is a very large swath of people between poorish and not rich which go to McDonalds.
> homeless are simply problematic
Idk, I can't speak about the homeless in other places but at least where I live it's most times not too big of a problem. But then I could imagine it quite a different situation in other places. Like e.g. where I live there are places the homeless can go to to take a shower, it's not perfect but in the end except a few exceptions most homeless tend to be at most a bit smelly and in turn it's not a problem in most McDonalds if they would pass by there.
>I mean what have the arguments you commented on to do with "the rich".
They're directly responding to a comment literally saying that this is done to drive away the homeless and poor so "the rich" don't have to see them.
And maybe homeless people differ depending on location, but where I'm from a good amount of homeless are obviously mentally unwell and alcoholics/on some other drug. Most of them seem peaceful and nice enough, but I've also had pretty negative experiences that range from unpleasant to downright scary. I wouldn't care if I saw a single homeless guy at a McDonalds, but if I knew that this was a location that attracted groups of homeless people (like e.g. some parks are), I would definitely stay clear of it.
> They're directly responding to a comment literally saying that this is done to drive away the homeless and poor so "the rich" don't have to see them.
ok, makes sense, it's not <so "the rich" don't have to see them> but <so "the non-homeless" don't have to see them>.
Well, it's also because McDonalds offered him free food for life if they could spread the story about him. Did they offer him more than just a free hamburger, I dunno.
I think it's important not to overcorrect here. The CDC issues all kinds of guidelines: wash your hands after petting a dog, always use a meat thermometer, definitely don't eat eggs with a runny yolk or raw cookie dough. (Less family friendly but more directly on point, they insist on dental dams for STD protection, which is probably even more widely ignored than the dog petting thing.) "Normal" doesn't mean the CDC will stop offering strict guidance on how to keep yourself healthy, it just means that most people feel okay slacking off on the parts that would be too annoying.
Okay, riddle me this: I work in a restaurant. I hand a bill to my customers. They leave without paying.
But actually, how do I know they haven't paid? Maybe they gave the restaurant money ahead of time when I wasn't around, or they paid secretly behind my back...
Or they just haven't paid their bill and i don't need to dig into it further. i ask them. If they paid, they'll let me know.
If they have, I'll know. If I don't know, they likely haven't. If they have anyway, they'll tell me.
When I go ask questions on Stack Overflow I don't usually go "btw I work for XYZ, we are maintainers of A/B/C and contribute to D/E/F/G/H", no, because it's not relevant. Even though the maintainers of Linux tools very likely use at least one of A-H.
You're completely missing the point of my post(s).
If you're contributing back to the software somehow, you'll have a more direct line to the developers. I've worked around, with and in open source nearly two decades, I've never seen this not be the case for anyone whose contributions weren't insignificant.
If your issue is anything but trivial, you'll be going through channels where it is in fact obvious you have contributed back. Not stack overflow. For this issue it absolutely applies.
If you can prove to me that the original poster/company has significantly contributed to the utility in question, I'll buy you a pizza. Your choice of toppings.
Okay, for the specific tool, sure. I tend to view this more as an ecosystem thing, and wouldn't consider someone who contributes elsewhere as someone scorn-worthy "not giving back" even if they haven't touched my specific small piece of software before. We started with
> God forbid you disturb the automatic tests of a company who's using your software without giving you anything in return.
By that measure the reaction to KDE CI asking about this man bug would be the same: "fuck them, what did they ever do for us". Fair?
This of course would be different for the (all-to-common) example of someone barging in and making threats/demands, but that's not the case here. Someone asked a question, nothing more.
I get what you mean and i agree to some extent. With that said i think the general disdain is justified given that the absolute majority of people and companies do not in fact contribute back.
Those who do shouldn't feel targeted by such statements imo.
Yes, I'm also very much talking about this specific case, where someone posted a factual question to a community channel. No demands, no "how dare you", no shouting, not even directly poking a maintainer. And I find the reactions jarring that just because they mentioned "our CI" suddenly they have to be bad guys. (Hoping that an end-user asking "my script unexpectedly failed" would not also get "what did users ever do for us" response)
I worked for a company where a developer put a dirty limerick in a UI control, activated by a keystone sequence.
They also turned on output tracing via another keystroke sequence.
During a presentation, one of the consultants needed to turn on tracing in front of a VERY large multinational client (heavens knows why, it was in front of C-suite execs…). They hit the wrong keystroke, and up popped the limerick - on a large projector, in front of the CEO.
I'm not saying putting easter eggs in is a good practice, only that it's not rare. I think with pretty much every company I've worked for, putting in easter eggs was specifically forbidden. And, in every company, they were put in anyway -- they just had to be sneaky enough to pass through code review undetected (which, I think, improved the quality of them!)
I don't think software is capable of wanting anything. As a FOSS user the less "seriousness" the better. Life is just more fun with jokes. I love that I can build "sudo" with an option to have it insult me when I get my password wrong. Who wants to live a serious life?
It's a criticism of the way FOSS software advocates seem to want to eat their cake and have it too. They ask the world why they aren't using more FOSS software, which has all these benefits from being free and open, and when the world replies with a list of all the downsides of relying on software written by people hacking in their spare time --see: JWZ and the CADT model-- the advocates fall back on the defense that you can't complain because it is free.
I know it sounds ridiculous, because free software is written by a diverse group of people with diverse goals, but this conversation happens all the time because its advocates often try to represent it as a cohesive whole, that it very much isn't, in pursuit of their own agenda.
