pull down to refresh

1 sat \ 3 replies \ @ek 25 Jul \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon

I'm sorry for how this conversation went, but when I ask you about a privacy leak and you respond with "what privacy leak?" while seemingly conveniently leaving out relevant details that you later reveal only after I press further, it doesn't look good.

That's what I'm chiding you for.

write
compose
1 sat \ 2 replies \ @optimism 25 Jul

Keeping at it yes? lol.

seemingly conveniently leaving out relevant details

I didn't know this was an interrogation. Or a disclosure. Are you wearing your popo hat right now? I'm sorry dear overlord ek, that I have inconvenienced you.

What really happened is that I assumed that you:

a) know about what can and cannot be opted out of, and
b) That if rank 1 is hidden and rank 2 is not, that you know the lower bound of rank 1.

Chide away, oh chivalrous SN police, protector of integrity. Except, again, you got it wrong.

reply
180 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 25 Jul

I’m sure this conversation would have gone so much better in person, without all the cascading misunderstandings that are inherent in most written, low-bandwidth online communication.

I think I’m going to take another break from SN.

I hope you guys have fun here without people like me.

reply
1 sat \ 0 replies \ @optimism 25 Jul

You wouldn't have talked to me in person like that, no. But I don't see what is wrong here. Did I press reply too quick? Maybe. I could have written a long comment. That faulty assumption is on me. However, like I said twice now, and I'll say it again for the last time, people make mistakes. Me too. You too. That's ok. But you're questioning my integrity based on an assumption error. That is not cool. I could do the same back to you and question your integrity because you touched this code and didn't fix it. But I don't, because there is no blame here.

We find ourselves in a culture where money - how much you have/make/spend is important for some reason. I'd gamble that you and I both don't like that. That's the whole context. I honestly thought that you understand the issue; I was already amazed that Simple was asking "who is doing this". Maybe I should have realized from the question itself that I should have approached this differently - with a PR instead of a comment on this thread. But, again, that is no reason to chide me or shame me. I honestly was of the impression that anyone can figure out ranking logic and I was wrong - fine. If that damages my integrity... then how do you talk to anyone anywhere?

reply