Hacker News Reader

Comment by eganist | Hacker News Reader

It might be worth the quick math.

As I put (edited, really) in my top comment, it's mostly just to have an entity you can reasonably go after if they goof.

A related question: Considering how far back this goes, what's stopping you from naming them? Is resolution in progress, or have they just been dead silent?

View on HN

They haven't been dead silent; last update was on Dec 15th saying they had been syncing with Companies House and the submission was in hand. I don't particularly want to name them though given I genuinely don't know at this point whether the bug is with Companies House or the accountants, and given the drama this has raised, I have no desire for a lynch mob to descend on them if they haven't done anything wrong.

That's fair. So long as they're still working with you through it (and if they goofed, are working to resolve it), it's fine. I was concerned for a moment they'd ghosted.

> what's stopping you from naming them?

And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.

> And why do you care so much who they are? They didn't harm you and in reality they didn't harm anyone. In the real world people don't deal with minor contractual grievances by naming and shaming.

Knowing who's reliable is everything.

The extended thread above yours adds extra light:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25903101

Reply on news.ycombinator.com