> False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama.
Notice how you ignore the second quote? Anyone can literally search these comments see what you said.
I guess there's not much you can do to try to argue that you're not defending the company, when you're claiming the people exposing them are just creating "drama" and are not trustworthy, so you default to just pretending you didn't say it.
This is not pancakes and waffles. This is someone putting out a video saying a corporation is poisoning pancakes, and you at the same time say "the video is not trustworthy" while trying to claim you are not defending the corporation.
> You are awfully obsessed with stalking my comment history and then misquoting what I said.
I'm not stalking your "comment history", I'm just replying to comments in this post. Again, are you incapable of factual accuracy?
> False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama.
Genuine question, how do you think serving papers works?
> These services cost less than traveling across the country to film yourself sitting on the person’s lawn for YouTube content.
Your claim was it costs $100.
This does not balance with the facts where they say they were quoted thousands.
> This is easily Google-able.
Google says it's far more than the $100 you suggested for evasive people.
> I’m baffled
That's clear. If you are baffled, maybe you should stop defending evil corporations until you get all the facts.
> that so many people think this is a normal thing to do
They don't think this is normal.
Why do you think these people think that having a YouTuber try to serve papers is normal? Please, show me the person who says that this is normal.
At least you're not the type who uses an anonymous handle on HN to defend evil companies.
I find it kind of pathetic to think so highly of HN points, to admit to gaming the system, to be so cowardly to say what you believe. Not that I would apply any of that to you. Those types of people are worthless.
Given a prompt like that, you are going to get equally trashy responses. You feed it slop, it's going to give back slop.
They aren't putting any effort into quality questions or requests. Maybe these aren't accurate to what they actually wrote or the actual response, but then that just means they are lying and can't be trusted.
I have direct experience telling a soc2 auditor that the approval control for installing applications on “endpoints” was a message to a slack channel that was assumed approved.
To satisfy the audit they looked at an app that was installed on a laptop that was not part of our base image from the previous 6 months and a screenshot of the message where the user “asked” to install it.
You can literally get a soc auditor to write up whatever you want as a control and if they don’t explain that and encourage it you should find a new auditor.
They're 100% right, substantively, about how they're satisfying their SOC2 control requirement here. I'd be alarmed and skeptical of any security practice that was led by compliance requirements.
> OK, so once again, you’re dismissing the other side’s arguments as lies.
Because they are lies. Assuming they are lying has served me well. When I did spend time assuming the best, I was disappointed time and time again to find out I'd been lied to. Now, assuming they are lying has proven to be the correct choice far more often than reasonable.
> If you want to convince people of your argument, start by engaging in actual debate instead of simply calling your opponent names.
Why do you think we care at all about convincing people? Why do you think we haven't already tried to do an actual debate?
You can't have reasonable discussions with people who dismiss reality and facts. I'm not talking about opinions, but facts.
For example, who won the 2020 election? Who was the president when 9/11 occurred? Who was the President in 2020? Is Trump a felon? Who pays for a tariff?
None of these are opinion based. And yet, you see government leaders who are unable to answer these BASIC questions. And it filters down.
Sorry, but you can't debate with people who don't believe in basic facts.
Let me show you how that works:
> Also, once again: I am not your opponent. I don’t agree with this change.
Yes, you are. Yes, you do agree with this change. Why do you agree with this change? Why do you support it? Why do you hate America?
> This sounds like an attempt to rationalize the fact that your business isn't that effective,
That's actually it. The part that can be sped up with AI don't change how slow everything else still takes. If you need 2 weeks to see the results of a change before AI, you still need that after AI.
Basically, your business is not keeping pace with development.
I would. They are evil. Treat them like so.
reply