I care nothing for stripe, but wasn't it only that one guy who told HN about it a few days ago? Now it's "Stripe applicants"? What kind of journalism is this.
edit: the actual article changed the original click-baity title
edit: the actual article changed the original click-baity title
I'm all for accountability and messing with keeping big tech under constant skepticism and check, but this smells like a coordinated hit piece. I wonder what's going on or who's pissed off at stripe and trying to show it.
So what is the number that would justify that title? I'd wager you would disagree with 3 as well.
So how many does it take according to you?
Instead of asking how many it takes to say "Stripe applicants etc..", you can instead just write the truth: "Two stripe applicants..." for example, a little more and you say "few", and so on... Actual words can be used to avoid misconceptions. But prevarication and omitting facts is not good for clickbaiting people though.
Yes, this is why I asked you how many it would take. But you are avoiding answering this question of definition. Apparently for you it is 'not two'.
So how many would it take?
Sort of ironic, given your evasive maneuvering around the question posed by the other commenter.
>omitting facts
I might have missed it, but which facts were ommitted?
Just tell the truth in the title and don't click bait people.
to be clear, they spoke to two people who had offers rescinded and a former recruiter at Stripe who talked about general turmoil in the hiring process.