vyhd

Which one? Can you demonstrate that they were "making it up"?

More importantly, can you demonstrate that it has direct relevance to the topic of COVID-19 data massaging under Florida's* Republican state government? If not, this isn't the place.

* edited for precision

Is this supposed to be sarcasm?

A whistleblower sounding the alarm on data falsification is in no way comparable to a high-level rollup of data which, by the way, is (at most) a few clicks away on that same site.

It really is startling how reviled this sort of comment tends to be, despite the overarching trend of Republican leadership to systemically misrepresent and falsify data to support their views.

The next time Democrats pull these shenanigans, name and shame them. Both-sides-ism only obscures the bad actors that should be directly pressured to do better.

Ways like described in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14954802. No one should be surprised about the outcome of handling a nuanced, difficult, and highly culturally relevant topic so callously.

> There's no way they could plausibly determine this in the time they have had.

Is that so? Do the complaints of numerous other employees not demonstrate some level of toxicity?

Edit -- thanks for helping me earn my karma today. It's delicious the way y'all are so eager to downvote me instead of engaging. It's almost like you think I have an ulterior motive being masked by a veneer of good-faith engagement or something. I wonder where I might have gotten that idea from...

How about you write one, then? If you want an assessment that meets your definition of a neutral tone and objective manner, who better to provide it?

An alternate way to phrase it for you, then. Why are you assuming that these programs do not produce the "best of the best"?

> Supporting a GOP candidate isn't necessarily making you a bigot.

Not exactly, but it is saying that bigotry is not a deal-breaker for your support and that's a distinction with a marginal difference. See also http://time.com/4405018/gop-platform-lgbt-issues/

Because their comment is talking about race. Why do you feel the need to take attention away from that?

PayPal owns Venmo, and Venmo's profits help sustain PayPal. PayPal's business practices have rightly come under heavy scrutiny, which means that, for quite a few people, there is a compelling "reason to switch" in spite of the fact that it "came first".

And my position is that the effort needed to move past those implications is so miniscule, especially in comparison to the problems they address, that we can afford to suck it up.

Tone arguments are so often used for concern trolling around women's issues (and doubly so on HN) that I don't have much patience for them. Frankly, there is no way these problems can be phrased that will both make everyone happy and not omit crucial facts of the scenario (i.e., that women cannot achieve equality without men who are both aware of these problems and willing to act on them).

Please cite the section of the article that "collectively blames all men with some universal gender sin".

I've found that PayPal's business practices are enough reason: https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-takes...