> how about you mind your own business and let others do the same.
said on a public forum in reply to a comment on a public forum...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
282 karma · joined October 25, 2016
said on a public forum in reply to a comment on a public forum...¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is this in public? cursory search did not return any hits.
They may care to weigh in.
Stupidity _and_ condescension? That's a combo I can't resist trying for myself. Blue ducks bark oranges.
Do you think your software product, if made in USA, would be bought in France or Germany or Italy or anywhere but North America if you did not have someone who worked in that timezone and spoke that language and knew that culture?
Would those people who did that role be considered an important part of your company, considering you would not have anywhere near the same number of sales from those regions if they did not exist?
To pre-rempt the "I'd outsource it" response. When 7+ figures of revenue(& profit) are at stake, I can assure you that you would change your mind. Or if you would not, the new guy the board hires to replace you would.
RegistrarSEC, LLC and RegistrarSafe, LLC are ICANN-accredited registrars formed in Delaware and are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Facebook, Inc.
Please remove retweet count as well.
Maybe Twitter can become a social network without herd mentality.
And then facebook(incl. instagram) can also remove their 'reaction emojis'
https://who.is/whois/facebook.com
> RegistrarSEC, LLC and RegistrarSafe, LLC are ICANN-accredited registrars formed in Delaware and are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Facebook, Inc.
"We're not an X company, we're a technology company that just happen to do X"
Never bought into that BS. Never will.
More often than not, they just got an ecom presence now and/or in-housed some pedestrian software dev.
They just handle cross currency transfers. Very far removed from payroll.
unless a company is rewriting the same 10 input form over & over again, I don't think that will work out great for anyone.
Do what services should do? Review the content before it's publicly available to ensure it's not breaking laws.
> That is changing and it's a terrible trend
I feel the opposite. For far too long, internet companies have taken liberties of everything being 'opt out' instead of 'opt in'. This is another example of that.
Eh, no. Tech companies have, by and large, just ignored existing legislation thus enabling them to host mountains of content at negligible cost.
They opened the floodgates - they should deal with the water (both that which is original & that which is stolen). They are 100% the cause of this issue and should be 100% of the solution.
If they're not able to do that, then they should get out of the business altogether.
Ignoring laws to lower your costs is not innovative in the slightest. Using the excuse that the internet is a new medium is malarky. Existing rules apply.
That's the true cost of their business. They'd just like to portray it as the law being an ass rather than their solution being inadequate for the laws.
It's a clear case of "Our machines aren't humans and we don't want to have to comply with laws that could substantially damage our payroll spend"
full talk at https://youtu.be/o_4EX4dPppA
Their website is lacking in any information. It claims "Disruptive Pricing" but you have to contact their sales team to see that pricing.
This seems like a premature PR piece.
Did you have many years experience with Java/C++ beforehand?
YouTube Text Overlay - coming soon.
> Scheduling interviews used to take a long time, but now it takes just a few clicks
The software must be pretty basic if that's a featured quote. What were the deciding factors for who they reach out to for these quotes? If that's one of the better answers, my respect for HR people has sunk to a new low.
Unlikely they're not active on HN. Maybe they could elaborate on how this happened.
Wonder how hard GDPR fines are going to hit them.
also only notified by haveibeenpwned
I'm pointing out that referring to those users as the above is simply not true.
As you then point out, wealth(direct or by proxy) was the determinant in whether somebody had internet access, not high technical sophistication.
And wealth in and of itself is not a signal of high technical sophistication.
would it happen if the person was dressed like whatever the stereotypical white person business casual attire is for the area?
i just can't see somebody being uncomfortable __just__ on color of skin. there surely has to be something else which triggers it.
person acting sketchy (maybe because they feel out of place rather than being up to dodgy activity?
Quaint but that's simply not true unless you're talking pre 90's. No point in kidding ourselves.
The internet was accessed by people who accessed the internet. They popped a floppy/cd in a drive and followed instructions. They then opened a browser and typed a url.
Nothing sophisticated about it.
Nobody was creating electrical signals by hand and sending them down a home made wire.